y 


OF  THE 
AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 


x>  t>  tv  .a.  t  i  o  tv     t>  if 

SAMUEL    AG  NEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     P, 


Q4Z. 


a*  c//_  £>cfr£  tSsfi 


♦  ©<5r=£92><Sd==>93<^^>33 


,——5,©  ^e^aa^e  ?^^>9  ♦ 


QJS.ai 


|     ,  Case,    «^--ft*Sa-f1 
S         £%&/,  *Sectic siX«  MX*.  -I- 


3<s^s4-: 


** 


I 


THE 

\POSTOLIC    ORIGIN 

OF 

EPISCOPACY 

ASSERTED, 

IN  A  SERIES  OF  LETTERS, 

ADDRESSED 

TO  THE  REV.  DR.  MILLER, 

ONE    OF    THE    PASTORS    OF    THE    UNITED    PRESBYTERIAN 
CHURCHES    IN    THE    CITY    OF    NEW-YORK. 

BY  THE  REV.  JOHN  BOWDEN,  D.  D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  MORAL  PHILOSOPHY,    LOGIC,   AND 
BELLES  LETTRES  IN  COLUMBIA  COLLEGE. 

Audi  alteram  partem. 

VOL.  II. 


$ete4l0rft: 

PRINTED  AND  SOLD  BY  T.  (3  J.  SWORDS, 
No.  160  Pearl-Street. 

1808. 


ERRATA. 


Vol.  I. 


Page  50,  line  4,  for  that  read  this. 

97,  last  line,  for  Presbyters,  read  Presbyteries. 
130,  line  14,  for  him,  read  them. 
160,  line  12,  for  Acts,  read  Article. 
170,  line  7,  9,  12,  put  the  before  third,  fourth,  fifth. 
197,  line  15,  for  keen  party  men,  read  keen  parity  men 
312,  line  3,  for  that  order,  read  t6«  order. 


Vol.  II. 

Page  81,  last  line,  for  friends,  read  fiends. 

122,  line  3,  for  6uW,  rea.d  /&tf.?. 

169,  line  2,  for  enlightened,  read  unenlightened. 

224,  line  3,  for  of  the  days,  read  to  the  days. 

247,  line  4th  from  the  bottom,  for  Holland  to,  read  Hol< 

V\d  *On. 


THE 

APOSTOLIC  ORIGIN 

OF 

EPISCOPACY 

ASSERTED. 


LETTER  XIV. 

Rev.  Sir, 

I  SHALL  now  examine  whether  the  Fathers  of 
the  Reformation  in  England  were  Presbyterians  in 
principle,  as  you  assert.* 

Your  first  proof  that  they  were,  is  taken  from  the 
book  entitled,  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man, 
This  book  was  published,  as  you  correctly  observe, 
in  the  year  1537,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  the  eighth. 
It  was  called  the  Bishop's  book,  because  it  was  com- 
posed by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  several  other 
prelates.  You  assert,  that  it  is  expressly  said  in 
this  book,  that  u  although  the  Fathers  of  the  suc- 
ceeding church  after  the  Apostles  instituted  cer- 
tain inferior  degrees  of  ministry  ;  yet  the  truth  is, 

*  Letter  v.  p.  219. 

Vol.  II,  B 


2  Letter  XIV. 

that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  any  other  degree  or  distinction  in  orders, 
but  only  of  Deacons  or  Ministers,  and  of  Presby- 
ters or  Bishops." 

I  doubt,  Sir,  whether  you  are  not  as  unfortunate 
in  this  quotation  as  you  have  been  in  several  others. 
The  book  you  quote  from  is  so  rare,  that  I  am 
pretty  well  satisfied,  there  is  not  a  man  in  this 
country  who  has  seen  it.  Nearly  a  hundred  years 
ago,  Collier,  who  has  given  an  abstract  of  it,  said 
it  was  a  very  rare  book.  When  he  wrote  his  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  he  had  it  before  him,  and  in 
the  abstract  he  has  given  us,  there  is  not  a  syllable 
of  what  you  have  quoted  j  but  much  to  the  con- 
trary. In  relation  to  the  authority  of  Bishops  and 
Priests,  he  says,^  "  They  [the  compilers  of  the 
Institution]  proceed  to  a  more  particular  explana- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  clergy,  and  divide  it 
into  two  branches  ; — Potestas  or  dims  et  potcstas  ju- 
risdictionis*  Concerning  the  first,  not  being  con- 
tested, they  say  nothing  :  the  latter,  touching  juris- 
diction committed  to  the  hierarchy,  they  throw  in- 
to three  subdivisions.  By  the  first,  they  are  em- 
powered to  reprove  immorality  and  misbelief,  and 
excommunicate  the  obstinate  and  ungovernable.— 
By  the  second  branch  of  jurisdiction,  Bishops  are 
authorized  by  our  Saviour  to  continue  the  suc- 
cession, and  perpetuate  the  hierarchy*    They  are 

*  Ecclc3.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  140. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  '3 

the  judges  of  the  qualifications  for  priesthood,  and 
may  admit  or  refuse  as  they  think  fit." 

They  further  observe,  that  w  a  third  branch  of  ju- 
risdiction, belonging  to  Bishops  and  Priests,  com- 
prehends the  power  of  making  canons  for  the  dis- 
cipline and  service  of  the  church."  Under  this 
head,  "  they  lay  it  down  for  a  certain  truth,  that 
neither  the  scripture,  nor  any  Father  of  the  Apos- 
tolical age,  mentions  our  Saviour's  making  any  dis- 
tinction or  disparity  in  the  Apostolical  or  Episco- 
pal character ;  but  that  all  the  Apostles  and  Bishops 
were  settled  upon  a  foot  oi  equality,  with  respect  to 
jurisdiction  and  authority." 

Now,  Sir,  it  is  evident  from  Colliers  abstract  of 
the  Institution,  that  you  have  been  led  into  an  error 
by  some  prejudiced  writer,  from  whom,  most  pro- 
bably, you  have  taken  your  quotation.  You  as- 
sert, after  your  author,  that  the  Institution  main- 
tains an  equality  among  all  the  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel. This  is  not  the  truth.  It  maintains  an  equa- 
lity among  all  the  Apostles  and  Bishops,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Pope's  supremacy  ;  but  does  not  give 
the  least  hint  of  an  equality  among  all  the  ministers 
of  the  gospel.  This,  Sir,  shows  how  cautious  we 
ought  to  be  not  to  deliver  ourselves  up  to  the  state- 
ments and  opinions  of  others. 

You  proceed — u  About  six  years  after  the  pub- 
lication of  this  book,  another  appeared,  which  was 
designed  to  promote  the  same  laudable  piir^ 
This  was  entitled,  The  necessary  Erudition  of  a 


■p 


Letter  XIV. 


Christian  Man.  It  was  drawn  up  by  a  committee 
of  Bishops  and  other  divines ;  was  afterwards  read 
and  approved  by  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal, 
and  the  lower  house  of  Parliament,  was  prefaced  by 
the  King,  and  published  by  his  command.  This 
book  certainly  proves  that  those  who  drew  it  up,  had 
obtained  much  more  just  and  clear  views  of  several 
important  doctrines,  than  they  possessed  at  the 
date  of  the  former  publication.  But  with  regard 
to  ministerial  parity,  their  sentiments  remained  un- 
changed. They  still  asserted  the  same  doctrine. 
They  say,  St.  Paul  consecrated  and  ordained  Bi* 
shops  by  the  imposition  of  hands ;  but  that  there  i3 
no  certain  rule  prescribed  in  scripture  for  the  nomi- 
nation, election,  or  presentation  of  them,  [that  is 
true]  but  that  this  is  left  to  the  positive  laws  of 
every  community.  [Undoubtedly !]  The  office  of 
the  said  ministers  is,  to  preach  the  word,  to  minister 
the  sacraments,  to  bind  and  loose,  to  excommuni- 
cate those  that  will  not  be  reformed,  and  to  pray 
for  the  universal  church.  Having  afterwards  men- 
tioned the  order  of  Deacons,  they  go  on  to  say, 
u  Of  these  two  orders  only,  that  is  to  say,  Priests 
and  Deacons,  scripture  maketh  express  mention  j 
and  how  they  were  conferred  of  the  Apostles  by 
prayer  and  imposition  of  hands." 

Still  I  must  have  recourse  to  Collier.  I  have 
never  seen  the  Erudition,  nor  do  I  believe  that  you 
Sir,  ever  have.  Like  the  Institution,  it  is  an  exceed- 
ingly rare  book.     Collier  gives  us  an  abstract  of  it. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  5 

•  The  Erudition"  says  he,  "  makes  orders  one  of 
the  seven  sacraments,  and  defines  it  a  gift  of  grace 
for  administration  in  the  church ;  that  it  is  con- 
veyed by  consecration  and  imposition  of  the  Bi- 
shop's hands ;  that  in  the  beginning  of  Christianity, 
this  character  was  given  by  the  Apostles.  The  proof 
is  drawn  from  the  epistles  of  St,  Paul  to  Timothy 
and  Titus." 

This  is  sufficient  proof  that  the  Erudition  main- 
tains  three  orders  in  the  church.  Notwithstanding 
this,  there  are  to  be  found,  according  to  Collier, 
the  words  which  you  have  quoted,  viz.  "  the  scrip- 
ture speaks  expressly  of  no  more  than  the  two  or- 
ders of  Priests  and  Deacons."  There  is  undoubt- 
edly a  seeming"  contradiction  between  these  two  pa:, 
sages ;  and  there  is  no  other  way  of  reconciling 
them,  but  by  saying  as  Collier  does,  that  "  under 
those  called  Priests  or  Presbyters,  this  book  sup- 
poses the  Episcopal  character  was  meant ;  for  that 
'hese  two  characters  were  distinct  and  subordinate, 
is  plain  from  this  Erudition"  He  then  adds,  that. 
"  this  last  book  does  not  stand  upon  so  strong  an 
authority  as  the  former.  The  Institution  was  the 
act  of  the  whole  clergy,  and  subscribed  by  both 
houses  of  Convocation,  But  the  necessary  Erudi- 
tion was  drawn  up  only  by  a  committee  of  the  King'i 
nomination"* 

The  manner  in  which  Collier  reconciles  the  Re- 

*  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  190,  191. 
B2 


6  Letter  XIV. 

formers  with  themselves  is  perfectly  easy  and  na- 
tural. It  corresponds  too  with  the  manner  of  speak- 
ing of  the  Priests  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
High  Priest,  as  I  have  several  times  mentioned,  is 
very  rarely  distinguished  from  the  other  Priests. 
The  usual  distinction  is — Priests'and  Levites.  The 
Fathers  too,  in  a  few  instances,  comprehend  all 
the  clergy  under  two  divisions— Presbyters  and 
Deacons.  At  other  times,  the  same  writers  parti- 
cularly distinguish  the  Bishop  from  the  Presbyter. 
The  High  Priest  was  a  Priest,  and,  therefore,  he 
and  the  Priest  were  generally  confounded ;  the  Bi- 
shop is  a  Presbyter,  and,  therefore,  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  were,  and  are  still,  sometimes  compre- 
hended under  one  title. 

With  respect  to  the  two  books  which  have  thus 
engaged  our  attention,  it  may  be  observed,  that  they 
were  intended  for  nothing  more  than  temporary  use. 
The  Reformation  in  England,  during  the  whole 
reign  of  Henry  the  eighth,  did  not  proceed  beyond 
the  state  of  infancy.  Not  a  single  article  of  import- 
ance, but  the  Pope's  supremacy,  was  as  yet  altered. 
Cranmer,  and  all  the  other  bishops  and  divines, 
who,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the  sixth,  made  so  great 
a  figure  in  reforming  the  church,  were  not,  till  that 
period,  free  from  the  prejudice  of  a  Popish  educa- 
tion. They  were  determined,  however,  to  proceed, 
and  to  correct  what  was  amiss  in  a  very  slow  and 
gradual  manner,  according  as  they  should  be  ena- 
bled to  determine  the  true  sense  of  scripture.     In 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  7 

tfie  mean  time,  the  two  books  in  question  were  pub- 
lished for  temporary  use.  Soon  after,  sqme  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  church  of  Rome  were  thoroughly 
canvassed  by  Cranmer  and  other  divines,  and  pro- 
nounced to  be  inconsistent  with  scripture,  and  the 
principles  of  the  primitive  church  in  the  purest  and 
best  ages.  It  is  no  wonder  then,  that  while  the  mist 
in  which  they  had  been  involved  all  their  lives,  was 
thus  slowly  dissipating,  that  we  should  find  some 
crude  expressions,  and  some  obscurity  of  ideas  in 
the  books  in  question.  Read  Colliers  Abstract  of 
these  two  books,  and  you  will  find  that  to  be  the 
case,  both  with  respect  to  doctrine  and  government. 
The  mode  which  they  adopted  was  the  wisest  that 

nn  could  suggest.  They  proceeded  very  cau- 
tiously in  comparing  the  doctrines  of  the  church  of 

ie  with  the  scriptures,  and  the  earliest  Fathers. 
As  they  derived  light  from  these  sources,  they 
declared  their  sentiments  upon  doctrinal  subjects ; 
and  then  they  proceeded  in  the  same  cautious  man- 
ner with  respect  to  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
TT*ey  took  nothing  for  granted,  either  with  respect 
to  doctrine  or  government,  merely  because  it  was 
entertained  by  the  church  of  Rome.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  were  very  suspicious  of  the  truth  of 
every  thing  which  that  church  taught.  Several 
questions  relating  to  the  orders  of  the  priesthood 
were  proposed  in  writing  to  the  divines  engaged 
in  this  business;  and  their  judgments  were  accu- 
rately summed  up,  and  set  down  by  the  Archbishop 


8  Letter  XIV. 

of  Canterbury*  This  transaction  should  be  dated 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  the  eighth,  and  not  ten  years 
afterwards,  as  you  assert,  following  either  the  Ire- 
nkwn,  or  somebody  that  has  implicitly  followed 
that  book.  This  appears  beyond  contradiction  from 
Bishop  Burnet,  who  has  completely  settled  that 
point. 

Now  let  it  be  considered,  that  all  this  important 
business  was  transacted  in  the  very  dawn  of  the 
Reformation,  when  but  very  few  steps  were  taken 
towards  a  thorough  change  in  doctrine  and  govern- 
ment. u  The  prepossessions  of  a  Popish  education," 
sa\  s  Dr.  Chandler,*  "  still  operated  in  the  minds  of 
these  honest  searchers  for  truth;  and  it  was  owing, 
perhaps  more  to  the  force  of  these  prepossessions, 
than  to  any  other  cause,  that  some  of  them  have 
used  expressions,  which  have  since  been  construed 
to  imply  their  having  some  doubts  concerning  the 
superiority  of  Bishops  over  Presbyters.  The  Po- 
pish schoolmen  and  canonists  had  been,  for  some 
ages,  endeavouring  to  destroy  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  orders,  of  which  Bishop  Burnet  gives 
a  particular  account,  concluding  it  in  these  words  : 
u  On  this  I  have  insisted  the  more,  that  it  may  ap- 
pear how  little  they  have  considered  things,  who 
are  so  far  carried  with  their  zeal  against  the  esta- 
blished government  of  the  church,  as  to  make  use  of 
some  passages  of  the  schoolmen  and  canonists  that 

*  Appeal  defended,  p.  25. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  $ 

deny  them  to  be  distinct  orders ;  for  these  are  the 
very  dregs  of  popery ;  the  one  raising  the  Priests^ 
for  the  sake  of  transubstantiation  ;  the  othv?r  pulling 
the  Bishops  lower,  for  the  sake  of  the  Pope\  supre- 
macy, and.by  such  means  bringing  them  almost  to 
an  equal."*  The  like  observation  was  made  before 
by  an  eminent  Archbishop,  who  says,  u  We  may 
justly  ascribe  the  reviving  of  the  Arian  heresy  in 
these  latter  days,  to  the  dispensations  of  the  court 
of  Rome,  who  licensed  ordinary  Priests  to  ordain, 
and  confirm,  and  do  the  most  essential  offices  of 
Bishops.  So  their  schools  do  teach  us,  a  Priest 
may  be  the  extraordinary  minister  of  priesthood, 
and  inferior  orders  by  the  delegation  of  the  Pope, 
Again—  The  Pope  may  confer  the  power  of  confir- 
mation upon  a  simple  Priest.  By  such  exorbitant 
practices  as  these,  they  chalked  out  a  way  to  inno- 
vators. And  yet,  they  are  not  able  to  produce  a 
precedent  of  such  dispensation,  in  the  primitive 
times."t 

You  proceed,  Sir,  to  inform  us,  that  "  five  years 
after  the  last  named  publication,  viz.  about  the  year 
1548,  Edward  the  sixth  called  a  select  assembly  of 
divines,  for  the  resolution  of  several  questions  re- 
lative to  the  settlement  of  religion.  Of  this  assembly^ 
Archbishop  Cranmer  was  a  leading  member,  and, 
to  the  tenth  question,  which  respected  the  office  of 
Bishops  and  Presbyters,  that  venerable  prelate  re- 

*  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  i.  p.  366.      f  Bramhall's  Works,  p.  431. 


10  Letter  XIV. 

plied,  "  Bishops  and  Priests  were,  at  one  time,  and 
were  not  two  things,  but  one  office,  in  the  beginning 
*>f  Christ's  religion." 

Now,  Sir,  in  this  opinion  I  can  see  nothing  in- 
consistent with  Episcopal  pre-eminence.  I  can  sub- 
scribe to  it  without  the  least  hesitation.  We  all 
agree,  that  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion, 
Presbyters  were  also  called  Bishops.  Consequently 
they  were  different  names  for  the  same  office.  But 
here  lies  the  fallacy.  The  word  bishop  in  the  ele- 
venth question,  was  understood  in  the  appropriate 
Sense.  The  question  is,  "  Whether  a  Bishop  hath 
authority  to  make  a  Priest  by  the  scripture  or  not  ? 
And  whether  any  other  but  only  a  Bishop  may  make 
a  Priest  ?"  To  this,  Dr.  Cox  answers, — u  Bishops 
[in  the  appropriate  sense  of  the  word]  have  autho- 
rity, as  is  aforesaid,  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  tenth 
question,  to  make  Priests,  except  in  cases  of  great 
necessity"  In  his  answer  to  the  tenth  question,  to 
which  he  refers,  he  had  made  this  distinction — Bi- 
shops as  they  be  now ;  that  is,  as  superior  to  Presby- 
ters ;  have  authority  to  make  Priests,  Dr.  Red- 
mayn  gives  his  opinion  in  these  words — u  To  the 
first  part  [that  a  Bishop,  in  the  appropriate  sense  of 
the  word,  hath  authority  to  make  a  Priest  by  scrip- 
ture] I  answer,  yea;  for  so  it  appeareth,  Titus  \, 
and  Tim.  v.  with  other  places  of  scripture.  But 
whether  any  other  but  only  a  Bishop  may  make  a 
Priest,  1  have  not  read,  but  by  singular  privilege  of 
God.     As  for  making,  that  is  to  say,  ordaining  and 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  i% 

consecrating  of  Priests,  I  think  it  specially  belonged* 
to  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  as  far  as  can  be  shown 
by  scripture,  or  any  example,  as  I  suppose  from 
the  beginning."  And  with  Redmayn  agree  Thirleby^ 
SymmonSy  Robertson,  Leighton,  and  others.  In 
short,  they  all  agree,  that  none  but  Bishops  have 
authority  to  make  Priests — a  few  making  an  excep* 
tion  to  cases  of  extreme  necessity.  Nothing  can 
be  more  clear  and  decisive,  with  respect  to  the  opi- 
nions of  the  English  Reformers,  than  the  statement 
of  Burnet  and  Collier  of  the  whole  progress  of  that 
business. 

From  this  view,  given  us  by  the  above  named 
historians,  it  is  evident,  that  if  this  transaction  had 
taken  place,  as  you  assert,  in  the  reign  of  Edivard 
the  sixth,  the  question  relating  to  Episcopacy  would 
not  be  affected  by  it.  All  agree  that  it  took  place 
before  the  ordination  offices  were  compiled  ;  but 
Burnet  clearly  proves,  in  opposition  to  Stillingfieet, 
that  the  transaction  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Henry 
the  eighth,  when  the  Reformers  had  made  but  little 
progress  in  the  great  work  in  which  they  were 
engaged;  and  that  of  course,  even  at  that  early, 
period,  they  had  become  perfectly  convinced  fromj 
scripture  and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  that 
Episcopacy  was  the  true  and  proper  government  of 
the  Christian  church. 

Yet,  Sir,  you  say,  with  Burnet  in  your  hands, 
that  he  maintains,  u  Such  were  the  language  and  the 
views  of  Cranmer  and  other  Prelates,  in  the  reign 


U  Letter  XIV. 

of  Edtvard  the  sixth  ;"*  when  he,  in  direct  terms, 
says  tht  contrary.  He  dates  the  questions  and  reso- 
lutions to  which  I  suppose  you  have  reference,  as 
far  back  as  the  year  1 540,  and  observes,  that  he  had 
a  seen  a  much  fuller  paper  concerning  orders  and 
ecclesiastical  functions,  signed,  either  in  the  year 
1537  or  1538,  since  it  is  subscribed  by  Edward  Fox, 
Bishop  of  Hereford,  who  died  in  May,  1538."t 
•  You  must  have  been  misled,  Sir,  by  somebody 
or  other  upon  this  point.  You  have  confounded 
two  distinct  transactions,  which  happened,  the  one 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  the  eighth,  the  other  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  the  sixth.  With  respect  to  the  lat- 
ter, Burnet  says,  "  This  winter  (1540)  there  was  a 
committee  of  select  Bishops  and  divines  appointed 
for  examining  all  the  offices  of  the  church,  and  for  re- 
forming them. — The  thing  they  first  examined  was 
the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist ;  which  being  the 
chief  of  Christian  communion,  was  thought  to 
deserve  their  chief  care.  And  here  they  managed 
their  inquiries  in  the  same  manner  that  was  used 
in  the  former  reign  ;  in  which,  when  any  thing  was 
considered  in  order  to  a  change,  it  was  put  into 
several  queries,*to  which  every  one  in  commission 
was  to  give  his  answer  in  writing.  It  is  no  wonder, 
if  the  confusion  that  followed  in  queen  Marifs  reign 
have  deprived  us  of  most  of  those  papers ;  yet  there 
is  one  set  of  them  preserved,  relating  to  some  ques- 

•  Letter  vi.  p.  222. 

f  Hist.  Ref.  addenda,  vol.  i.  p.  289,  365r 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  13 

uons  about  the  priest1  s  single  communicating."*  I 
have  looked  over  the  questions  to  which  Burnet 
refers,  and  I  do  declare,  that  there  is  not  to  be 
found  in  them  one  syllable  upon  the  subject  of 
Episcopacy. 

This  evidence,  together  with  Stri/pe\  shows  in 
a  satisfactory  manner,  that  Stilling 'feet  was  mis- 
taken, in  dating  the  transaction  in  question  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  the  sixth.  Burnet,  in  his  history, 
corrected  the  error ;  and  StiUingfieet  never  contro- 
verted the  point,  that  we  know  of. 

The  circumstance,  too,  of  the  manuscript,  which 
Burnet  says  he  had  seen,  and  which  contains  the 
questions  and  answers  in  a  fuller  manner  than  that 
of  1540,  and  which  was  clearly  drawn  up  no  later 
than  in  1538,  as  it  was  signed  by  Fox,  Bishop  of 
Hereford,\vho  died  that  year, — affords  strong  proof, 
that  the  business  had  been  begun  in  1538,  but  was 
not  completed  till  1540.  There  is  also  strong  in- 
ternal evidence,  that  the  questions  and  answers  were 
put  out  some  years  before  the  framing  of  the  ar- 
ticles of  the  churGh,  and  the  offices  of  public  wor- 
ship, which  took  place  in  1548.  In  the  latter 
there  was  unanimity,  in  the  former  there  was  not. 
The  minds  of  those  excellent  men  were  gradually 
enlightened  ;  it  was  scarcely  possible  that  it  should 
have  been  otherwise.  But,  if  the  business  of  the 
questions  and  answers  took  place  in  the  same  year 

*  Hist.  Reform,  vol.  ii.  p.  61. 

Vol.  II.  C 


1-*  Letter  XIV. 

in  which  the  articles,  &c.  were  framed,  the  re- 
formers must  have  had  the  light  of  truth  break 
in  upon  them  very  suddenly  indeed ;  for  in  the 
former,  there  is  much  crudeness  of  expression, 
some  difference  of  opinion,  and  some  singularity 
of  sentiment.  But  every  thing  has  a  different  aspect 
in  the  articles  and  offices  of  the  church.  These 
circumstances  are,  I  think,  sufficient  to  convince 
every  impartial  person,  that  you  have  been  misled 
by  Stillmgjleet,  or  somebody  else,  in  dating  the 
questions  and  answers  in  1548. 

But  notwithstanding  this  correct  view  of  the 
whole  business  given  by  Burnet  and  Collier,  you  still 
push  forward  with  zeal  to  carry  your  point.  You 
say,  "  Another  circumstance,  which  serves  to  show 
that  Archbishop  Cranmer  considered  the  Episcopal 
system  in  which  he  shared,  as  founded  rather  in 
prudence  and  the  will  of  the  magistrate,  than  the 
word  of  God,  is,  that  he  viewed  the  exercise  of  all 
Episcopal  jurisdiction  as  depending  on  the  pleasure 
of  the  King,  and  that,  as  he  gave  it,  so  he  might 
take  it  away  at  pleasure.  Agreeably  to  this,  when 
Henry  the  eighth  died,  the  worthy  primate  regarded 
his  own  Episcopal  power  as  expiring  with  him  ;  and 
therefore  would  not  act  as  Archbishop  till  he  had 
received  a  new  commission  from  King  Edward.1'' 

There  is,  Sir,  nothing  in  this  world  easier,  than  to 
misstate  facts  and  superinduce  false  colours  upon 
truth.  Your  unlearned  and  prejudiced  readers  have, 
no  doubt,  been  greatly  misled  by  your  numerous 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  II 

misstatements,  and  your  extremely  plausible  asser- 
tions. No  doubt,  you  mean  what  you  say,  and 
are  perfectly  free  from  any  inteDtion  of  giving  a 
wrong  view  of  the  subject.  But  how  %o  acquit  you 
from  negligence  in  the  investigation  of  facts,  I  de- 
clare, Sir,  I  do  not  know ;  and  therefore  shall  not 
attempt  it. 

That  Archbishop  Cranmer  took  out  a  new  com- 
mission for  the  exercise  of  his  office,  is  true  ;  but  it 
was  not  upon  the  principle  which  you  mention.  It  is 
undeniable,  that  it  was  the  doctrine  of  the  King,  the 
Bishops,  and  the  whole  nation,  that  authority  to 
administer  the  sacraments,  and  to  perform  all  other 
spiritual  offices,  was  derived,  not  from  the  crown, 
but  from  Christ.  This  doctrine  was  explicidy 
maintained  in  the  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man," 
as  you  will  see  by  consulting  Collier.  And  that  it 
was  maintained  by  the  King,  is  evident  from  a  let- 
ter of  his  to  the  convocation  of  the  province  of 
York,  explaining  the  supremacy.  That  letter  you 
will  find  in  Dr.  Chandler's  Appeal  defended,  p.  54. 
Therein  the  King  makes  a  clear  distinction  between 
the  temporal  and  spiritual  powers  of  the  Bishops  ; 
the  former  he  derives  from  the  state,  the  latter 
from  Christ.  It  is,  therefore,  evident,  that  what 
was  meant  to  be  given  by  the  King,  was  nothing 
more  than  a  legal  right  to  exercise  that  spiritual 
function,  which  was  derived  from  Christ,  and  a 
jurisdiction  relating  to  matters  testamentary,  ma- 
trimonial, &c.  which  was   derived  from  the  state. 


16  Letter  XIV. 

Afterwards,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the  sixth,  from 
1548  to  1553,  Bishops  were  commonly  appointed 
by  the  King's  letters  patent,  "  By  those  letters,"  says 
Bishop  Burnet,  "  it  is  clear,  that  the  Episcopal 
function  was  acknowledged  to  he  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  that  the  person  was  no  other  way  named 
by  the  King,  than  as  lay  patrons  present  to  livings; 
only  the  Bishop  was  legally  authorized  in  such  a 
part  of  the  King's  dominions,  to  execute  that  func- 
tion which  was  to  be  derived  to  him  by  impositioh 
of  hands."* 

This,  Sir,  is  the  true  state  of  the  matter ;  and  it 
evidendy  shows  how  very  incorrect  you  are,  when 
you  advance  Cranmer's  taking  out  a  new  commis- 
sion after  the  death  of  Henry,  as  a  proof  that  he  be- 
lieved Episcopacy  was  a  mere  human  institution. 

As  a  further  proof  that  Cranmer  believed  the 
Episcopal  office  to  be  of  Apostolical  institution, 
let  us  have  recourse  again  to  the  questions  and  re- 
solutions.. To  the  11th  question,  Dr.  Leighton 
thus  answers :  u  I  suppose  that  a  Bishop  hath  au- 
thority of  God,  as  his  minister,  by  scripture,  to 
make  a  Priest ;  but  he  ought  not  to  admit  any  man 
to  be  a  Priest,  and  consecrate  him,  or  to  appoint 
him  to  any  ministry  in  the  church,  without  the 
Prince's  license  and  consent.  And  that  any  other 
man  hath  authority  to  make  a  Priest  by  scripture,  I 
have  not  read,  nor  any  example  thereof."  To  the 
12th  question,  Leightoh  answers  :  "  I  suppose  there 
*  His.  Ref.  vol.  ii.  p  128. 


Tesi  tf 'the  Reformers*  17 

is  a  consecration  required,  as  by  imposition  of 
hands  ;  for  so  we  be  taught  in  the  ensample  of  the 
Apostles."  Durell,  in  his  Vindicice,  says,  that  hav- 
ing had  an  opportunity  of  examining  the  original 
manuscript,  he  found  that  Crcmmer  gave  his  con- 
sent to  Leighton\  opinions  upon  this  subject, 
scribing  to  each — Thos.  Cantuariensis.*  This  is  a 
decisive  proof,  that  the  Archbishop  was,  at  that  pe- 
riod, a  correct  Episcopalian. 

Before  that  time,  Cranmer  seems  indeed  to  have 
had  too  high  a  notion  of  the  power  of  the  magis- 
trate ;  and  it  appears  from  the  above  answer,  that 
Ijeighton  also  had  ;  and  it  may  be,  for  any  thing  I 
know  to  the  contrary,  that  all  the  reformers  of  the 
church  of  England  had  the  same  tincture.  Burnet 
says — "  In  Cranmer  s  papers  some  singular  opi- 
nions about  the  nature  of  ecclesiastical  offices  will 
be  found  ;  but  as  they  are  delivered  by  him  with  all 
possible  modesty,  so  they  are  not  established  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  church,  but  laid  aside  as  particular 
conceits  of  his  own  ;  and,  it  seems,  that  c/ieniards 
he  changed  his  opinion*  For  he  subscribed  the 
book  that  was  soon  after  set  out,  which  is  directly 
contrary  to  those  opinions  set  down  in  those  pa- 
pers.'^ These  are  sufficient  proofs,  that  Cranmer 
and  the  other  reformers  were  far  enough  from 
being  Presbyterians  in  principle,  as  yg.u  incau^ 
tiously  assert. 

•  Chandler's  Appeal  defended,  p  2C 
f  Hist.  Reform  vol.  f.  p.  239. 

C  2 


18  -Letter  XLV. 

But  as  some  men,  from  one  cause  or  other,  are 
very  hard  to  be  convinced,  I  will  add  more  evidence 
with  respect  to  Cranmer. 

Bishop  Burnet  informs  us,  that  in  1548,  Cranmer 
compiled  a  Catechism,  or,  "  large  instruction  of 
young  persons  in  the  grounds  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion;" in  which,  says  my  author,  "  he  fully  owns  the 
divine  institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests."  Cranmer 
also  published,  at  the  same  time,  a  sermon  on  the 
authority  of  the  keys,  which  is  as  highly  Episcopal 
as  any  thing  can  be.  In  that  sermon  are  the  fol- 
lowing words.  I  shall  give  them  according  to  our 
modern  spelling.  "  They  that  were  so  ordained, 
were  indeed,  and  also  were  called,  the  ministers  of 
God,  as  the  Apostles  themselves  were,  as  Paul 
saith  unto  Timothy.  And  so  the  ministration  of 
God's  word,  (which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself 
did  first  institute)  was  derived  from  the  Apostles 
unto  others  after  them  by  imposition  of  hands,  and 
giving  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  the  Apostles  down  to 
our  da)  s.  And  this  was  the  consecration,  orders, 
and  unction  of  the  Apostles,  whereby  they^  at  the 
beginning,  made  Bishops  and  Priests,  and  this  shall 
continue  in  the  church,  even  to  the  world's  end." 

But  even  these  proofs,  convincing  as  they  are,  do 
not  close  the  evidence  upon  this  point.  I  appeal  to 
the  ordination  offices,  which  are  the  public  standards 
of  the  church,  and  which  were  compiled  by  Cran- 
mer and  others  in  the  year  1550.*  You,  Sir,  in- 
*   Burnet.  Hist.  Reform,  vol.  ii.  p  113, 144. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  19 

deed,  endeavour  to  preclude  us  from  that  plea,  by 
observing,  that  "  those  who  insist  on  this  argument, 
forget  that  the  ordination  service,  as  it  now  stands  ^ 
differs  considerably  from  that  which  was  drawn  up 
by  Cranmer  and  his  associates.  If  I  mistake  not, 
that  service,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  re- 
formers, did  not  contain  a  sentence  inconsistent 
with  the  opinions  which  I  have  ascribed  to  them." 
Thus  you  assert,  Sir,  but  give  us  no  proof  what- 
ever of  the  correctness  of  your  assertion.  Profes- 
sing as  you  do,  to  have  nothing  in  view  but  to  lead 
your  Christian  brethren  into  truth,  you  ought  cer- 
tainly to  have  laid  before  them  the  evidence  upon 
which  you  ground  your  assertion.  But  this  you 
have  not  done  in  the  smallest  degree.  I  also  think, 
Sir,  that  xve  are  entitled  to  some  respect.  When 
you  say  we  are  wrong,  you  ought  to  prove  upon 
solid  grounds  that  we  are  so.  You  can  hardly  sup- 
pose, that  we  shall  take  your  assertion  for  proof; 
especially  after  the  numerous  specimens  you  have 
given  us,  that  there  is  a  wide  difference  between 
asserting  and  proving.  Were  I  to  assert  that  you 
are  mistaken  upon  this  point,  it  would  prove  just 
as  much,  as  your  saying  that  zve  are.  Reallv,  Sir, 
this  mode  of  discussion  is  far  beneath  a  scholar  and 
a  man  of  sense. 

But  to  come  to  the  point.  In  the  year  1 549,  not 
long  after  Edward's  accession  to  the  throne,  an  act 
passed  the  parliament  for  drawing  up  an  Ordinal 
The  act  being  short,  I  shall  transcribe  from  Collier 


20  Letter  XIV. 

so  much  as  will  answer  my  purpose.  After  pre- 
mising the  object  of  the  act  to  be  concord  and  unity, 
it  proceeds  to  say — a  It  is  requisite  to  have  one 
uniform  fashion  and  manner  for  making  and  conse- 
crating of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  or  Mi- 
nisters of  the  church.  Be  it,  therefore,  enacted  by 
the  King's  Highness,  with  the  assent  of  the  Lords 
spiritual  and  temporal,  and  the  Commons  in  this 
present  parliament  assembled,  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  same,  that  such  form  and  manner  of  making, 
and  consecrating  of  Archbishops,  Bishops,  Priests, 
Deacons,  and  other  ministers  of  the  church,  &c."* 

From  this  act  it  is  evident,  that  the  formation  of 
different  offices  for  different  orders,  was  contem- 
plated. It  is,  therefore,  reasonable  to  suppose,  that 
the  intention  of  the  act  was  fulfilled,  and  that  dif- 
ferent offices  were  actually  framed  for  different 
orders.    This  was,  in  fact,  the  case. 

But  those  who  are  ever  looking  out  for  some 
slight  defect,  upon  which  they  may  ground  an  ob- 
jection, have  said,  that  in  the  Ordinal  set  forth  in 
Edward's  reign,  the  words  for  conveying  the  Bi- 
shop's character,  are  not  the  same  as  in  the  present 
Ordinal,  Thus,  in  the  latter,  the  words  are — Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Bishops 
&c.  But  in  the  former,  the  words  were — Take  the 
Holy  Ghost,  remember  that  thou  stir  up,  &c.  Here, 
say  they,  the  word  Bishop  was  not  used,  and., 
therefore,  it  could  not  have  been  determined  to 
*  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  288. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  21 

what  office  the  person  on  whom  hands  were  laid, 
was  designed. 

This,  Sir,  is  one  of  the  weakest  and  most  idle 
cavils  I  have  ever  seen.  It  was  first  started  by  the 
Papists  ;  and  the  Puritans,  although  folly  is  marked 
upon  "  the  head  and  front"  of  it,  were  not  ashamed 
to  repeat  it.  Collier,  in  answer  to  it,  observes,*  that 
u  although  the  word  Bishop  is  not  used,  (at  the 
time  of  imposing  hands)  yet  there  is  a  plain  dis- 
tinction in  other  parts  of  the  office.  For  instance, 
there  is  an  express  declaration  of  two  Bishops,  that 
the  person  present  is  to  be  consecrated  to  their  own 
order.  There  are  more  questions  put  to  him  by  the 
Archbishop,  than  are  mentioned  in  the  office  for 
ordaining  Priests ;  some  of  wThich  suppose  a  supe- 
rior authority  in  his  character,  and  that  the  exer- 
cise of  discipline,  and  the  government  of  a  diocese* 
are  branches  of  his  function.  The  Archbishop,  and 
two  other  Bishops,  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of 
the  elect;  whereas,  at  the  ordination  of  a  Priest,  this 
rite  is  performed  by  the  Diocesan  with  some  Priests 
assisting."  It  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  denied  with 
any  appearance  of  reason,  that  the  first  and  second 
Ordinal  are  precisely  the  same  as  to  intention,  dis- 
tinction of  office,  and  conveyance  of  authority. 

As  a  further  proof  that  a  new  office  was  conferred 
by  the  old  Ordinal,  I  would  observe,  in  the  words 
of  Dr.  Chandler,  that,  "  in  the  ordination  of  Pres- 

*  Ecc,  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  291, 


22  Letter  XIV. 

byters,  a  distinction  of  their  office  from  that  of  Bi- 
shop, immediately  follows.  They  are  declared  to 
have,  and  the  declaration  implies  that  they  have, 
in  virtue  of  that  ordination,  only  the  power  of  ab- 
solving penitents,  and  of  dispensing  the  word  and 
sacraments ;  and  that  in  such  congregations  as 
they  should  be  appointed  to.  There  is  not  the 
least  appearance  of  Episcopal  powers,  nor  of  any 
authority  which  is  not  at  this  day  given  by  the 
church  of  England  to  Presbyters.  But  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  Bishops,  there  is  not  the  least  restraint ;  the 
words  are  left  general,  as  they  were  used  by  Christ 
in  ordaining  his  Apostles ;  and  all  the  ordinary  au* 
thority,  -which  they  were  originally  intended  to  ex- 
press, is  conveyed  by  them  without  diminution. 
So  that  in  one  case,  there  is  only  a  limited  commis- 
sion given ;  but  in  the  other,  a  commission  without 
any  restriction  or  limitation,  and,  consequently,  ex- 
tending to  all  ecclesiastical  offices,  which,  in  fact, 
is  also  intended."* 

Bishop  Burnet  also  argues  correctly  and  forcibly 
Upon  this  point.  "  It  is  to  be  considered,  that  ec- 
clesiastical orders  being  from  the  influence  and  ope- 
ration of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  being  one,  yet 
hath  different  operations  for  the  different  adminis~ 
trations;  therefore,  the  concomitant  actions,  words, 
and  circumstances  must  show,  for  which  adminis- 
tration the  Holy  Ghost  is  prayed  for,  since  that  gene- 

*  Appeal  further  defended,  p.  42,*  43. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  2J 

rai  prayer  is  made  for  all;  but  the  functions  being 
different,  the  same  Holy  Ghost  works  differently  in 
them  all.  Therefore,  it  is  plain  from  the  practice 
of  our  Saviour,  that  there  is  no  need  of  expressing, 
in  the  very  words  of  ordination,  what  power  is 
thereby  given,  since  our  Saviour  did  not  express  it, 
but  what  he  said  both  before  and  after,  did  deter- 
mine the  sense  of  those  general  words  to  the  Apos- 
tolical function.  The  whole  office  of  consecrating 
Bishops,  (for  instance)  shows  very  formally  and  ex- 
pressly what  power  is  given  in  those  (general) 
words.  So  that  a  Priest  being  presented  to  be  made 
a  Bishop,  the  King's  mandate  being  read  for  that 
effect,  he  swearing  canonical  obedience  as  Bishop 
elect ;  prayers  being  put  up  for  him  as  such,  toge- 
ther with  other  circumstances  which  make  it  plain 
what  they  are  about;  those  general  words  are  by 
these  qualified  and  restrained  to  that  sense." 

What  can  be  the  reason,  Sir,  when  you  revived 
this  idle  cavil,  that  you  did  not  extend  it  to  the  or- 
dination of  Priests  likewise  ?  You  must  certainly 
know,  that  in  the  old  ordinal,  the  word  Priest  was 
not  used  at  the  time  of  imposing  hands  ;  and,  there- 
fore, if  the  objection  has  any  force  in  the  one  case, 
it  has  equal  force  in  the  other  ;  and  then  Chere  was 
no  distinction  made  by  the  old  ordinal  between  the 
office  of  a  Presbyter,  and  that  of  a  Deacon.  Thus 
would  the  whole  ministry  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land be  demolished  at  a  stroke ;  and,  let  me  add,  the. 
Presbyterian  ministry  too ;  as  it  was  derived  in 


24  Letter  XIV. 

Great-Britain  principally,  if  not  altogether,  from  the 
Bishops  of  that  church.  This,  I  suppose,  Sir,  you: 
thought,  would  be  carrying  the  matter  too  far. 

Indeed,  Sir,  it  is  too  gross  a  reflection  upon  the 
English  reformers,  who  are  acknowledged  by  all 
the  world  to  have  been  great  and  good  men,  to  sup- 
pose that  they  would  compose  different  offices,  for 
the  ordination  of  Bishops  and  Priests,  if  they  believed 
them  to  hold  the  same  office.  Is  it  possible,  that 
men  who  had  any  conscience,  would  perform  the 
solemn  farce  of  reinvesting  the  Bishop  elect  with 
the  same  powers  which  he  received,  when  he  was 
ordained  a  Priest?  Can  any  one  who  knows  the 
characters  of  those  divines,  suppose  that  they  would 
be  so  profligate  as  to  invoke  the  Almighty  for  his 
blessing  upon  them  in  communicating  those  powers, 
which  they  had  no  intention  of  communicating,  as 
the  person  was  supposed  to  be  invested  with  them 
already  ?  Sir,  this  cavil  carries  folly  upon  the  face 
of  it,  and  must  ever  be  considered  by  every  man 
who  has  any  pretensions  to  impartiality,  to  be  as 
weak  as  it  is  ungenerous. 

As  a  further  proof  that  the  reformers  maintained 
a  distinction  of  offices  in  the  church,  they  expressly 
said,  in  their  preface  to  the  old  ordinal, — - 

"  It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading 
holy  scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that  from  the 
Apostle's  time  there  have  been  these*  orders  of 
ministers  in  Christ's  church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons." 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  ^o 

.  Still  farther.  The  prayers  in  the  old  ordinal  ex- 
pressly mentioned  the  appointment  of  divers  or- 
ders by  the  Holy  Ghost.*  Thus,  at  the  ordination 
of  a  Bishop,  the  prayer  was  just  the  same  as  it 
is  now.  Almighty  God,  giver  of  all  good  things, 
■who,  by  thy  Holy  Spirit,  hast  appointed  divers  or- 
ders of  Ministers  in  thy  church, ^mercifully  behold 
this  thy  servant  novo  called  to  the  work  and  minis- 
try  of  a  Bishop,  £^c.  The  same  declaration,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  appointed  divers  orders  in  the 
church,  was  likewise  in  the  prayers  used  at  the  or- 
dination of  a  Priest,  and  of  a  Deacon. 

Now  it  is  a  consequence  obvious  to  common  sense, 
that  when  a  committee  was  appointed  for  the  express 
purpose  of  composing  distinct  offices  for  the  ordina- 
tion of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons — when  three 
distinct  offices  were  actually  composed— when  in  the 
preface  to  these  offices,  three  distinct  orders  were 
particularly  enumerated ;  and  when  in  the  prayers 
of  each  office,  it  is  expressly  declared,  that  divers 
orders  were  appointed  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and, 
lastly,  when  in  the  service  for  consecrating  a  Bishop, 
it  is  explicitly  said,  that  the  elect  is  to  be  admitted 
into  the  office  of  a  Bishop— when,  I  say,  these  things 
are  considered,  it  is  obvious  to  common  sense,  that 
the  reformers  believed  that  Bishops  were  superior 
to  Presbyters  by  Apostolic  institution,  or  else  they 
were  the  most  odious  hypocrites  that   ever  dis- 

*  See  Brett  on  Episcopacy,  p.  159,  and  Burnet,  vol.  ii.  p.  144, 

Vol.  II.  D 


26  Letter  XIV. 

graced  the  Christian  church.  I  do  not  see,  Sir,  how 
it  is  possible  for  you  to  avoid  adopting  one  part  or 
other  of  this  alternative. 

It  is  really  a  curiosity  in  the  region  of  contro- 
versy, that  you,  Sir,  and  Dr.  Chauncy,  in  this 
country,  and  Mr,  Neal,  and  others,  in  England, 
should  have  recourse  to^so  pitiful  a  cavil,  as  to  in- 
fer from  the  word  Bishop  not  having  been  used  at 
the  imposition  of  hands,  that,  therefore,  there  was 
no  intention  of  conveying  any  authority  beyond  what 
the  Bishop  elect  was  invested  with,  when  he  was 
ordained  a  Priest;  when  the  objection  of  the  whole 
body  of  Puritans  to  these  offices  was,  that  they  do 
make  the  office  of  a  Bishop  superior  to  that  of  a 
Priest.  In  their  short  table  of  sundry  exceptions, 
&c.  p.  99,  they  place  it  under  the  article  of  defects 
in  the  public  service,  that  "  the  Priest  receiveth  in 
his  ordination,  no  authority  to  govern  the  flock,  and 
exercise  the  discipline  of  Christ,  but  only  to  preach 
and  administer  the  sacraments ;"  whereas,  in  the 
office  for  consecrating  a  Bishop,  that  power  is  ex- 
pressly conferred — Be  to  the  flock  of  Christ  a  Shep- 
herd, not  a  wolf — be  so  merciful  that  ye  be  not  too 
remiss;  so  minister  discipline  that  ye  forget  not 
mercy.  Under  the  head  of  untruths,  they  rank  the 
Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  in  which  the  three  orders 
are  expressly  mentioned;  and,  to. crown  all,  they 
rank  under  the  head  of  Popish  Errors,  that  u  Dea- 
cons, Priests,  Bishops,  and  Archbishops,  are  made 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  27 

•several  orders  and  degrees  of  ministry."*  [By  the 
way,  Archbishops  were  never  considered  a  distinct 
©rder ;  nor  were  they  ever  ordained  to  that  office  ; 
and  that  the  Puritans  must  have  known  very  well.] 
I  think,  Sir,  I  may  now,  with  great  propriety, 
address  you  in  the  words  used  by  Bishop  Madox, 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Neal,  upon  the  same  point.  "  No- 
thing, sure,  but  the  impossibility  of  supporting  your 
scheme,  and  proving  the  parity  of  Presbyters  and 
Bishops  any  other  way,  could  have  put  you  upon  this 
method  of  attempting  it.  You,  indeed,  have  un- 
dertaken a  difficult  task,  and  must,  therefore,  have 
great  allowances  in  the  execution  of  it.  The  sense 
and  practice  of  the  whole  Christian  church  for  1500 
years,  in  a  form  of  church  government,  so  early, 
so  universally,  so  constantly  received,  were  great 
obstacles.  No  instances  of  Presbyters  executing 
the  distinguishing  offices  of  a  Bishop  ;  no  example 
of  any  man's  being  a  Bishop  one  day,  and  reduced 
to  a  mere  Presbyter  the  next,  as  must  have  been 
the  case,  had  a  Bishop,  as  is  sometimes  alleged, 
been  no  more  than  a  Chairman,  a  Moderator,  or 
temporary  President  of  a  Presbytery  ;  no  instances 
of  many  Bishops  for  places  where  there  were  manv 
Priests :  on  the  contrary,  we  always  find  one  par- 
ticular person  mentioned  as  the  Bishop,  and  sole 
Bishop  of  one  particular  city,  even  where  there 
were  many  Presbyters.  This  being  the  case,  other 
methods  were  to  be  tried,  and  the  verv  form  of 

*  See  Madox  agairs*  N#al. 


28  Letter  XIV. 

consecrating  a  Bishop,  who  had  before  been  or- 
dained a  Priest,  be  employed  to  prove  there  was, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  compilers  of  that  form,  no 
such  order  as  Bishops  in  the  church — all  were  Pres- 
byters, and  nothing  more,  not  only  the  order,  but 
the  very  office  the  same." 

Will  you,  Sir,  take  Bishop  Burnet's  account  of 
the  opinions  of  the  reformers  upon  this  point?  "  In 
the  ancient  church,"  says  he,  "  they  knew  none  of 
those  subtilties  which  were  found  out  in  the  latter 
ages.  It  was  then  thought  enough,  that  a  Bishop 
was  to  be  dedicated  to  his  function  by  a  new  impo- 
sition of  hands,  and  that  several  offices  could  not 
be  performed  without  bishops;  such  as  ordination, 
confirmation,  &c*  But  they  did  not  refine  in  these 
matters  so  much  as  to  inquire,  whether  Bishops  and 
Priests  differed  in  order  and  office,  or  only,  in  degree* 
But  after  the  Schoolmen  fell  to  examine  matters 
of  divinity  with  logical  and  unintelligible  niceties, 
and  the  Canonists  began  to  comment  upon  the  rules 
of  the  ancient  church,  they  studied  to  make  Bishops 
and  Priests  seem  very  near  one  another,  so  that  the 
difference  was  but  small.  They  did  it  with  different 
designs.  The  Schoolmen  having  set  up  the  grand 
mystery  of  transubstantiation,  were  to  exalt  the 
priestly  office  as  much  as  was  possible ;  for  the 
turning  the  host  into  God,  was  so  great  an  action, 
that  they  reckoned  there  could  be  no  office  higher 
than  that  which  qualified  a  man  to  so  mighty  a  per- 

*  Madox  against  Neal,  p.  64,  65. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  29 

formance. — But  as  they  designed  to  extol  the  order 
of  Priesthood,  so  the  Canonists  had  as  great  mind 
to  depress  the  Episcopal  order.  They  generally 
wrote  for  preferment,  and  the  way  to  it  was  to  exalt 
the  papacy.  Nothing  could  do  that  so  effectually 
as  to  bring  down  the  power  of  Bishops."  After  se- 
veral other  observations,  Burnet  says,  "  These  are 
the  very  dreg's  of  'popery  ;"  and  then  concludes  with 
these  strong  words  :  "  So  partial  are  some  men  to 
their  particular  conceits,  that  they  make  use  of  the 
most  mischievous  topics  when  they  can  serve  their 
turn,  not  considering  how  much  farther  these  ar- 
guments will  run,  if  they  ever  admit  them."* 

It  now,  Sir,  appears  beyond  all  reasonable  contra- 
diction, that  the  compilers  of  the  old  ordinal  ac- 
knowledged three  distinct  orders  in  the  church,  as 
the  preface  to  the  ordinal  evinces — that  they  de- 
clared there  were,  by  divine  appointment,  divers 
orders  of  ministers — that  they  composed  a  distinct 
office  for  the  ordination  of  each  order — that  there 
could  be  no  dispute  to  which  of  these  orders  the 
person  ordained  was  admitted,  nor  what  were  the 
peculiar  duties  of  his  office — and  that  all  this  war. 
approved  of,  and  consented  to  by  the  Bishops  and 
Clergy,  and  established  by  the  King  and  Parlia- 
ment. Still  it  must  be  admitted,  that  adding  the 
words — for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Bishop,  in  the 
one  office,  andyir  the  office  and  work  of  a  Priest  in 

*  Hist.  Reform,  vol.  i.  p  366. 
D2 


Letter  XIV. 

the  other,  completely  removed  the  objection  which 
me  Puritans  and  Papists  made  to  these  offices  ;  and 
entirely  freed  those  candid  inquirers  after  truth 
from  that  unhappy  necessity,  which  they  thought 
"hemselves  under,  of  obscuring  what  was  suffici- 
ently clear  to  unprejudiced  minds. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this  clear  and  decisive 
evidence,  we  have  not  yet  come  to  the  close  of 
this  part  of  the  discussion.     As  a  further  argument 
in  proof  of  your  point,  you  observe,  that  "  when 
these  great  reformers  went  further  than  to  compile 
temporary  and  fugitive  manuals;  when  they  under- 
took to  frame  the  fundamental  and  permanent  arti- 
cles of  their  church,  we  find  them  carefully  guard- 
ing against  any  exclusive  claim  in  behalf  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy.     If  they  had  deemed  an  order  of  Bi- 
shops superior  to  Presbyters,  indispensably  neces- 
sary to  the  regular  organization  of  the  church,  and 
the  validity  of  Christian  ordinances,  can  we  sup- 
pose that  men  who  showed  themselves  so  faithful 
and  zealous  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  would  have 
been  wholly  silent  on  the  subject?    And  above  all, 
if  they  entertained   such  an  opinion,  would  they 
have  forborne  to  express  it  in  that  article  in  which 
they  undertook  formally  to  state  the  doctrine  of 
their  church  with  respect  to  the  Christian  ministry? 
That  article  (the  23d)  is  couched  in  the  following 
terms:    It  is  not  lavjful  for  any  man  to  take  upon 
him  the  office  of  public  preaching  or  ministering  the 
sacraments  in  the  congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  Si 

.ailed  and  sent  to  execute  the  same.  And  those  ive 
ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be 
chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men,  who  have 
public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congrega- 
tion, to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord^s  vine- 
yard" You  say  that,  "  here  is  not  a  syllable  said 
of  diocesan  Bishops,  or  of  the  necessity  of  Episco- 
pal ordination  ;  on  the  contrary,  there  is  most  evi- 
dently displayed  a  studious  care  to  employ  such 
language  as  would  embrace  the  other  reformed 
churches,  and  recognize  as  valid  their  ministry  and 
ordinances."* 

To  this  I  answer,  1st.  The  question  between  us 
is  not,  whether  the  reformers  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land believed  that  Presbyterian  ordination  is  valid, 
where  no  other  can  be  had,  but  whether  Episcopacy 
is  of  Apostolical  and  divine  institution  t  That  they 
believed  it  is,  has  been  proved  beyond  all  reason- 
able contradiction;  and  that  the  23d  article  does  not 
contradict  that  opinion,  is  perfectly  clear. 

2d.  It  was  not  the  business  of  the  reformers  to 
say  in  the  above  article,  that  the  divine  institution 
of  Episcopacy  necessarily  precludes  from  the  cha- 
racter of  churches,  those  which  have  not  the  order 
of  Bishops,  They  said  enough  when  they  declared, 
that  "  it  is  evident  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  an- 
cient authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  times  there 
have  been  these  orders  of  Ministers  in  the  church, 

*  Letter  vi.  p.  223. 


32  Letter  XIV- 

Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons;"  and  when  they 
said,  that  "  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to 
be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in  the  church 
of  England,  or  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said 
functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and 
admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the  form  hereaf- 
ter following,  or  hath  had  formerly  Episcopal  con- 
secration or  ordination." 

3d.  It  is  clear,  beyond  all  controversy,  from  the 
above  declarations,  that  the  reformers  maintained 
the  apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy ;  and,  there- 
fore, when  they  say,  in  the  23d  article,  that  "  it  is 
not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the  office 
of  public  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments 
in  the  congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully  called 
and  sent  to  execute  the  same  ;"  the  words  before  he 
be  lawfully  called  and  sent,  must  necessarily  be  in- 
terpreted by  the  words  in  the  preface  to  the  ordinal, 
viz.  No  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  for  a  lawful 
Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  except  he  be  called  accord- 
ing to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had 
formerly  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination.^- 
Here  it  is  evident  that  the  reformers  consider  none 
as  lawful  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  without 
Episcopal  ordination ;  at  the  same  time  they  say 
nothing  about  Presbyterian  ordination,  leaving  it 
to  shift  for  itself  upon  the  plea  of  necessity,  or 
any  other  plea  its  advocates  may  advance  in  its  fa- 
vour. This,  considering  the  danger  to  which  the 
whole  reformation  was  exposed,  was  a  mark  of 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  33 

prudence ;  but  I  think  no  impartial  and  candid  man 
can  consider  it  as  affording  the  smallest  proof,  that 
the  reformers  did  not  consider  Episcopacy  as  of  di- 
vine institution,  and  Presbyterian  ordination  as  ir- 
regular, and  totally  destitute  of  Apostolic  sanction. 

I  know  it  has  been  said,  although  you  do  not  say 
it,  that  by  the  word  lawful  is  meant,  according  to 
the  larv  of  the  land.  But  I  do  not  see  how  that  can 
be  ;  for  the  King  and  Parliament,  who  alone  have 
authority  to  make  laws,  did  not  draw  up  the  offices 
and  articles  of  religion,  but  the  Bishops  and  clergy 
assembled  in  convocation,  who  have  ever  been  es- 
teemed the  proper  expositors  of  the  law  of  God, 
When  the  clergy,  therefore,  declare  any  thing  to 
be  lawful  or  unlawful,  they  must  ne-  essarily  be  un- 
derstood, according  to  the  law  of  God.  For  the 
judges,  not  the  clergy,  are  the  proper  expositors  of 
the  laxv  of  the  land.  This  evasion,  therefore,  is 
totally  inadmissible. 

Lastly.  It  might  as  well  be  argued  by  the  ad- 
vocates for  lay  ordination,  from  there  being  no 
mention  of  Presbyters  in  the  23d  article,  that  the 
church  of  England  does  not  require  so  much  as 
Presbyters  to  lay  on  their  hands  in  ordination,  as 
that  she  does  not  require  Bishops  to  lay  on  their 
hands,  because  nothing  is  said  in  that  article  about 
diocesan  Bishops.  The  argument,  in  respect  to  the 
former,  is  just  as  conclusive  as  in  respect  to  the 
latter.  But  this  proves  too  much;  and,  therefore, 
by  a  rule  of  logic,  proves  nothing. 


34  Letter  XIV. 

I  shall  close  this  head,  and  this  letter,  with  notic- 
ing your  quotation  from  Bishop  Burnet,  The  quo- 
tation amounts  to  this,  that  the  reformers  did  not 
magisterially  pronounce  a  sentence  of  invalidity, 
upon  the  orders  of  the  reformed  churches  upon  the 
continent.  That  is  very  true.  It  was  not  their  bu- 
siness to  do  so  in  direct  and  pointed  terms.  But  let 
any  man  consider  the  genuine  consequence  of  the 
declaration  of  the  reformers.  They  say  there  were 
three  orders  instituted  by  the  Apostles— -Bishops, 
Priests  and  Deacons.  That  to  Bishops  belongs  the 
right  of  ordaining ;  and  that  none  shall  be  consi- 
dered lawful  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  unless 
they  have  been  Episcopally  consecrated  or  ordained. 
Let  any  one,  I  say,  consider  the  genuine  conse- 
quence of  these  declarations,  and  then  if  he  can 
see  any  thing  in  the  article  of  a  comprehensive  na- 
ture, I  shall  not  be  so  hostile  to  his  repose,  as  to  at- 
tempt to  deprive  him  of  the  comfort  he  can  derive 
from  it. 

When,  Sir,  you  quoted  Burnet,  why  did  you  not 
give  us  the  last  words  of  the  passage  which  you  ad- 
duced ?  Those  words  are—-."  Necessity  has  no  law, 
and  is  a  law  to  itself."  From  this  it  is  evident,  that 
he  predicates  all  that  he  says  upon  necessity*  Read 
the  whole  that  he  says  upon  the  Article,  and  yoa 
will  see  that  all  his  observations  rest  upon  that 
ground. 

To  conclude  :  It  is  very  evident  from  what  has 
appeared  in  this  letter,  that  Burnet  fully  believed 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  35 

the  Apostolical  and  divine  institution  of  Episco- 
pacy ;  yet,  he  had  some  how  or  other  a  way  of  sa- 
tisfying himself,  that  the  want  of  Episcopal  orders 
renders  a  church  only  irregular  and  unsound;  but 
does  not  invalidate  her  ministry.  Upon  this  point, 
unanimity  among  Episcopalians  cannot  reasonably 
be  expected. 

I  shall  now  conclude  with  the  testimony  of  the 
learned  historian,  Mosheim.  Of  the  church  of 
England,  he  says,  "  It  constantly  insisted  on  the 
divine  origin  of  its  government  and  discipline."* 


*  Eccles.  Hist,  vol,  ii.  p.  231, 


t    30    )- 


LETTER  XV. 


Rev.  Sir 


I  SHALL  continue  the  consideration  of  your  tram 
©f  arguments  in  support  of  vour  assertion,  that  the 
reformers  of  the  church  of  England  were  Presby- 
terian in  principle. 

I  think  that  I  have  already  said  quite  sufficient  to 
show,  that  you  are  very  far  from  being  correct  in 
this  assertion.  But  as  you  endeavour  to  support  it, 
by  other  arguments,  it  is  expedient,  if  not  neces- 
sary, for  me  to  canvass  every  thing  material  that 
you  have  said. 

You  observe,  that "  an  act  of  Parliament  was 
passed  in  the  13th  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Eli- 
zabeth, to  reform  certain  disorders  touching  minis- 
ters of  the  church;"  and  that  "  this  act  was  framed 
■with  an  express  view  to  admitting  into  the  church 
of  England,  those  who  had  received  Presbyterian 
ordination,  in  the  foreign  reformed  churches,  on 
their  subscribing  the  articles  of  faith."*  That 
there  was  an  act  passed  in  the  13th  of  Elizabeth^ 
to  reform  certain  disorders,  &c.  is  true  ;  but  that  it 

*  Letter  vi.  p.  225. 


Testimony  of  the  Mefot  mers.  37 

was  with  "■  an  express  view  of  admitting  into  the 
church  those  who  had  received  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation," does  not  appear  at  all  from  the  act.  You 
ought,  Sir,  to  have  given  your  readers  that  part: 
of  the  act  which  relates  to  the  present  subject. 
It  runs  thus  :  Be  it  enacted— "  that  every  person, 
under  the  degree  of  a  Bishop,  which  doth,  or  shall 
pretend  to  be  a  Priest,  or  Minister  of  God's  holy 
word  and  sacraments,  by  reason  of  any  other  form 
of  institution,  consecration,  or  ordering,  than  the 
form  set  forth  by  Parliament  in  the  time  of  the  late 
King,  or  now  used  in  the  reign  of  our  most  gra- 
cious Sovereign  Lady,  before  tke  feast  of  the  nati- 
vity of  Christ  next  following,  shall,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Bishop,  declare  his  assent,  and  subscribe  to 
all  the  articles  of  religion — and  shall  bring  from 
such  Bishop,  in  writing  under  his  seal  authentic, 
a  testimonial  of  such  assent  and  subscription — upon 
pain  that  every  such  person,  which  shall  not,  before 
the  said  feast,  do  as  is  appointed,  shall  be,  (ipsa 
facto)  deprived."* 

From  this  act  it  is  evident,  that  the  case  of  the 
foreign  Presbyterian  churches,  and  the  validity  of 
ordination  by  Presbyters,  were  not  at  all  contem- 
plated. There  is  not  a  syllable  said  about  either. 
It  speaks  indeed  of  those  who  pretended  to  be 
Priests  by  an  ordinal  different  from  that  of  King 
Edward's;  but  by  that  was  principally,  if  not  exclu- 

*  Gibson's  Codex,  p.  396,  and  Sparrow's  Collection,  p.  118, 

Vol.  II.  E 


38  Letter  XV. 

sively  meant,  such  as  were  ordained  by  the  Popish 
ordinal.  But  what  a  valid  ordination  is,  the  act 
does  not  say.  We  must  have  recourse  for  that  to 
the  preface  of  the  ordinal,  which  expressly  makes 
Episcopal  ordination  the  only  lawful  mode.  The 
act  does  not  say,  that  all  who  were  ordained  by 
Presbyters,  or  in  any  other  manner,  should,  upon 
subscription,  be  allowed  to  hold  livings  in  the  church. 
That  would  have  been  a  direct  contradiction  of  the 
act  passed  in  the  reign  of  Edxvard;  and,  therefore, 
such  an  extension  should  not  be  given  to  it. 

Let  it  further  be  considered,  that  it  was  the 
avowed  doctrine  of  the  church  throughout  the 
whole  reign  of  Elizabeth,  that  Episcopal  ordination 
was  of  divine  appointment,  and  then  it  will  be  evi- 
dent, that  the  act  in  question  could  not  have  been 
designed  to  indulge,  under  the  specified  condition, 
those  who  had  received  no  other  orders  but  Presby- 
terian. 

To  confirm  your  opinion,  that  this  act  was  in- 
tended to  comprehend  those  who  had  received  no 
other  orders  but  Presbyterian,  you  observe,  "  that 
Dr.  Strype,  an  eminent  Episcopalian,  informs  us, 
that  this  act  was  framed  with  an  express  view  to 
admitting^  into  the  church  of  England,  those  who 
had  received  Presbyterian  ordination  in  the  foreign 
reformed  churches,  on  their  subscribing  the  articles 
of  faith." 

You  ought,  Sir,  in  order  to  give  your  readers  a 
correct  view  of  what  Strype  says,  to  have  given  us 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  39 

..is  own  words.  They  are  as  follows:  "  It  con- 
cerned all  such  persons  as  pretended  to  be  Priests 
and  Ministers  of  God's  word  and  sacraments  under 
the  degree  of  a  Bishop,  by  reason  of  any  other 
form  of  institution,  consecration,  or  ordering,  than 
:he  form  set  forth  in  the  late  King  Edward's  time, 
and  now  used  in  the  reign  of  the  Queen.  Meaning, 
mdoubtedly,  to  comprehend  Papists,  and  likewise 
such  as  received  their  ordination  in  some  of  the 
foreign  reformed  churches,  when  they  were  in  exile 
under  Queen  Mary**  From  this  it  is  evident,  that 
Strype  did  not  mean  to  comprehend  all  the  re^ 
formed  churches.  He  expressly  says  some  of  them ; 
most  probably  the  churches  of  Sweden,  Denmark, 
and  Bohemia,  By  the  church  in  Bohemia  is  meant 
the  reformed  church  in  that  kingdom,  which  was 
deemed  Episcopal. 

Notwithstanding  these,  in  my  judgment,  decisive 
observations,  with  which  I  can  hardly  suppose  you 
are  unacquainted,  (for  they  are  not  new)  you  pro- 
ceed thus :  "  The  conduct  of  the  English  reform- 
ers corresponded  with  their  laws  and  public  stand- 
ards. They  invited  several  eminent  divines  from 
the  foreign  reformed  churches,  who  had  received 
no  other  than  Presbyterian  ordination,  to  come  over 
to  England  ;  and,  on  their  arrival,  in  consequence  of 
this  formal  invitation,  actually  bestowed  upon  them 
important  benefices  in  the  church,  and  in  the  uni- 

*  Annals.  Reform.  lib.  i.  chap.  7.  An.  1571. 


40  Letter  XV. 

versities."  Pray,  Sir,  from  whom  did  you  receive 
this  information  ?  What  can  be  the  reason  that  you 
will  not  give  us  your  authority  for  what  you  ad- 
vance as  facts?  I  have  never,  in  the  whole  course 
of  my  reading,  met  with  any  controversial  writings, 
in  this  respect,  like  yours.  You  heap  quotation 
upon  quotation,  without  condescending  to  give  us 
the  chapter,  the  page,  or  even  the  volume  ;  and  you 
have  repeatedly  advanced  things  as  matters  of  facts 
without  exhibiting  the  testimony  by  which  the  facts 
are  supported.  Thus,  in  the  instance  under  consi- 
deration, you  assert,  that  several  foreign  divines, 
who  had  only  Presbyterian  ordination,  were  allowed 
to  hold  benefices  in  England,  Who  were  those  fo- 
reign divines  ?  You  have  not  told  us.  I  will  supply 
the  omission.  They  were,  P.  Martyr,  M,  Bucer, 
and  P.  Fagius.  The  two  last  were  never  admitted 
to  any  ecclesiastical  benefice.  They  were  admitted 
to  nothing  but  academical  preferments.  The  first, 
indeed,  had  an  ecclesiastical  preferment ;  but  he 
was  previously  ordained  by  a  Bishop.^  Thus, 
these  turn  out  like  most  of  your  other  facts. 

You  still  proceed :  "  Besides  inviting  these  dis- 
tinguished divines  into  England,  Archbishop  Cran- 
/tier  and  Grindal,  and  their  associates,  corresponded 
with  Calvin,  solicited  his  opinion  respecting  many 
points  in  the  reformation  of  the  church,  and  not 
only  acknowledged  him  in  the  most  explicit  man  - 

"   Chandler's  Appeal  defended,  p.  43. 


i  e&timony  of  the  Reformers.  41 

ner,  to  be  a  regular  minister  of  Christ,  and  the 
church  of  Geneva  to  be  a  sister  church,  but  also  ad- 
dressed him  in  terms  of  the  most  exalted  reverence, 
and  heaped  upon  him  every  epithet  of  honour." 

Still  no  proof.  Tou,  Sir,  have  said  it,  and  that 
is  enough.  But  let  it  be,  that  the  English  reform- 
ers held  Calvin  in  reverence;  what  does  that  prove? 
Does  it  prove  that  they  acknowledged  the  validity 
of  ordination  by  Presbyters?  You  certainly  will 
not  draw  that  inference  from  it.  The  truth  is,  that 
they  respected  Calvin  for  his  talents,  learning,  and 
zeal ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  the}*  censured  hi& 
arrogant,  tyrannical  spirit.  No  one  can  deny  that 
m  the  exercise  of  his  ministerial  authority,  the  Ro  - 
man  Pontiff  himself  was  scarcely  his  equal  for 
tyranny  and  arrogance.  Of  this  I  could  give  abun- 
dant proof,  were  it  necessary.  But  the  fact  is  too 
notorious  to  need  it.  The  Reformers  knew  this 
very  well ;  and  therefore,  when  he  offered  his  ser- 
vices, they  civilly  rejected  the  offer.  This  displeased 
him  to  such,  a  degree,  that  although  he  had  before 
spoken  handsome  things  of  the  church  of  England,, 
yet,  from  that  time,  he  began  to  say  harsh  things  of 
her;  still  his  talents  and  learning  commanded  re- 
spect, and  he  became  the  oracle  of  one  part  of  the 
reformation.  The  respect  then  which  the  English 
divines  paid  to  Calvin,  was  the  result  of  that  prin- 
ciple of  human  nature,  which  irresistibly  impels  us 
to  admire  talents  and  learning.  This,  I  believe,  is 
the  whole  of  the  matter. 

E2 


Letter  XV. 

But  you,  Sir,  will  have  it,  that  the  Reformers  ad- 
mitted the  validity  of  his  orders,  and  acknowledged 
the  church  of  Geneva  to  be  a  true  church.  Allowing 
that  to  be  the  case,  it  was  upon  no  other  ground 
ihan  that  of  necessity,  which  is  the  very  ground  upon 
which  Cabin  himself,  at  first,  placed  it.  But,  Sir, 
I  doubt  very  much  whether  the  Reformers  ever  con- 
sidered Calvin  in  the  light  of  a  minister ;  for  it  is 
very  uncertain,  whether  he  received  even  Presby- 
terian ordination;  any  other  he  certainly  did  not. 
Dr.  Learning,  in  his  controversy  with  Mr.  Welles, 
positively  asserts,  that  Beza,  and  Papirius  Massi* 
a'ius  declare  that  he  never  was  ordained.  Reeves 
loo,  in  the  preface  to  his  Apologies,  bears  the 
same  testimony.  Beza  must  have  been  perfectly 
acquainted  with  the  matter  ;  for  he  was  Calvin's 
intimate  friend.  Nor  had  Calvin,  before  he  left 
'/ranee,  Episcopal  orders,  if  we  may  believe  Du 
Pin,  It  is  well  known  that  he  was  originally  in- 
tended for  the  church,  having  received  an  appoint- 
ment in  the  Cathedral  of  Noifon,  before  he  was 
twelve  years  of  age.  He  afterwards  held  the  cure 
of  Manteville,  which  he  exchanged  for  that  of  Pont 
:cqu.e;  but  this  happened  in  1529,  when  he  was 
under  age.  And  Du  Pin  positively  says,  that  "  he 
possessed  these  benefices  without  being  in  ecclesi- 
astical orders  ;"  and  it  is  certain  that  about  this  time 
lie  gave  up  his  preferments  in  the  church,  and  ap- 
plied himself  to  the  study  of  the  law  ;  so  that  it  is 
net  at  all  probable,  that  after  quitting  the  church  for 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  43 

the  law,  he  was  afterwards  episcopally  ordained. 
Indeed,  it  is  plain,  not  only  from  Du  Pirfs  testimony 
that  he  was  not,  but  from  this  circumstance  also  ;-— 
that  before  he  was  twenty-three  years  of  age,  he  em- 
braced the  new  doctrines  as  they  were  then  called ; 
and  he  certainly  after  that,  neither  would,  nor  could 
have  been  ordained  in  the  church  of  Rome,  And, 
after  this  period,  it  does  not  appear  from  any  docu- 
ment whatever,  that  he  ever  received  any  thing  like 
an  ordination.  It  is  then  pretty  clear,  that  Cahin 
had  no  other  pretensions  to  the  ministerial  charac- 
ter, than  what  was  founded  on  the  election  of  him 
by  the  magistrates  and  people  of  Geneva,  to  be  their 
preacher  and  professor  of  divinity.  And  yet,  no 
doubt,  this  lay  professor  of  divinity  ordained  num- 
bers ;  and  thus,  a  spurious  brood  of  ministers,  even 
upon  Presbyterian  principles,  was  introduced  into 
that  church ;  and,  consequently,  there  can  be  no 
probability  of  a  clear,  uninterrupted  succession  of 
ministers  from  that  source. 

Now,  Sir,  if  these  things  be  so,  it  is  not  at  all 
probable,  that  the  Reformers  of  the  church  of  Eng* 
land  would  have  explicitly  acknowledged  Calvin's 
ministerial  character.  You  must  produce  positive 
proof  for  that;  and,  further,  if  you  should,  you  must 
show,  that  what  they  said  was  not  grounded  upon 
the  consideration  of  his  ordination  being  a  case  of 
necessity ;  but  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  Re- 
formers, that  ordination  by  Presbyters,  upon  all  or* 
dinary  occasions,  is  lawful.    I  am  sorry,  Sir,  to  give 


4A  Letter  XV. 

you  all  this  trouble;  but  as  you  have  brought  Calvin 
upon  the  board,  it  is  necessary  that  you  should  help 
him  out  of  his  difficulties,  as  well  as  you  can. 

You  proceed  to  give  us  another  case,  which  shows, 
in  your  judgment,  in  what  light  the  Reformers  of 
the  church  of  England  viewed  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation. The  case  is  that  of  John  Morrison,  a  Pres- 
byterian minister,  who  was  licensed  by  Archbishop 
Grindal  to  preach,  &c.  in  the  Province  of  Canter- 
bury. Well,  S;r,  this  being  the  fact,  what  is  the 
inference  1  Precisely  this — that  Grindal  thought 
ordination  by  Presbyters  valid ;  but  not  that  his 
opinion  made  it  so*  Now,  if  this  be  the  only  lo- 
gical inference,  we  need  not  give  ourselves  much 
trouble  about  it.  I  have,  however,  some  consider- 
ations to  offer,  to  which  I  request  your  attention. 

1.  Whatever  may  become  of  this  case,  it  is  a 
curious  circumstance,  that  you  should  urge  it  as  a 
proof  of  the  principles  of  the  Reformers.  Grindal 
was  not  one  of  them;  he  was  not  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  till  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  ;  and  the 
event  you  have  adduced,  did  not  take  place  till  near 
thirty  years  after  the  reformation.  How  is  it  pos- 
sible, Sir,  that  you  could  have  run  into  such  an 
error  ?  Nor  would  it  follow,  if  he  had  been  one  of 
the  Reformers,  and  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  at 
that  time,  and  had  done  just  as  he  did  in  respect 
of  Morrison,  that  the  other  Reformers  were  of  his 
opinion.  That  is  no  consequence.  The  result 
simply  is,  that  Grindal  thought  Presbyterian  orders 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers*  45 

valid.  But  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  principles 
of  the  Reformers  ?  Just  as  much  as  with  the  prii> 
ciples  of  Confucius, 

2.  Let  us  consider  what  sort  of  a  man  Grindal 
was.  He  is  said  to  have  been  remiss  in  his  disci- 
pline; insomuch  that  the  government  took  notice  of 
it.  Collier*  has  recorded  a  letter  from  the  Privy 
Council  to  him,  in  which  they  complain  of  his  con- 
duct, and  enjoin  for  the  future  a  stricter  discipline, 
and  a  more  punctual  execution  of  the  ecclesiastical 
laws  upon  all  the  violators  of  them.  But  what  places 
in  a  striking  point  of  light  the  turn  of  his  mind,  is 
the  encouragement  he  gave  to  what  was  then  called 
prophesying.  This  was  a  sort  of  preaching  much 
in  vogue  among  the  more  enthusiastic  part  of  the 
clergy.  The  result  was  much  confusion,  shameful 
irregularity,  and  great  injury  to  the  church*  "  The 
exercise  of  prophesv  ing,"  says  Collier, "\  u  was  at- 
tended with  several  inconveniences.  It  gave  op- 
portunity to  the  spreading  of  erroneous  doctrine. 
For  that  purpose,  those  who  were  suspended,  or 
deprived  for  nonconformity,  ventured  to  appear  at 
these  meetings.  And  here  they  took  the  liberty  to 
declare  against  the  government  and  liturgy  of  the 
church.  And  sometimes  their  satire  was  played 
upon  the  state.  Sometimes  they  glanced  upon  per- 
sons, and  ran  out  into  particular  invectives.  And 
sometimes  the  laity  undertook  the  argument,  and 

Eccle*  Hbt    vol.  ii.  p.  571         \  Vol.  ii  p.  55? 


46  Letter  XV. 

held  forth.  In  short,  the  exercises  at  last  were  re- 
markable for  squabbling,  and  unnecessary  disputes, 
and  failed  in  the  requisites  of  chanty  and  discre- 
tion." 

Now,  who  would  suppose  that  Archbishop  Grin- 
dal  was  a  friend  to  these  meetings  ?  Yet  such  was 
the  case.  It  must,  however,  be  acknowledged,  that 
he  did  not  countenance  the  irregularities,  but  drew 
up  a  set  of  rules  to  check  them.  But  the  tendency 
of  them  was  bad,  and  no  rules  could  answer  any 
good  purpose.  The  government,  therefore,  or- 
dered the  suppression  of  them.  A  particular  man- 
date to  that  purpose  was  sent  to  the  Archbishop, 
but  he  refused  to  comply  with  it.  For  his  disobe- 
dience, he  was  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  his 
office  for  six  months.  After  the  lapse  of  that  pe- 
riod, the  government  offered  to  restore  him  upon  a 
proper  submission.  He  made  a  submission,  but  it 
was  not  deemed  satisfactory.  The  suspension  was, 
therefore,  continued.  How  long  he  remained  in 
this  state  I  cannot  learn;  but^tt  length,  meeting  the 
wishes  of  government,  he  was  restored  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  Episcopal  function. 

According  to  Collier,*  it  was  before  the  Arch- 
bishop's jurisdiction  was  restored,  that  his  Vicar- 
General,  Dr.  Aubrey,  granted  a  preaching  license  to 
John  Morrison ;  and  if  it  were,  Grinded  did  by  his 


*  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  579. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  47 

Vicar  what  he  had  no  right  to  do  ;  that  is,  he  ex- 
ercised his  function  while  under  suspension. 

From  this  statement,  which  I  believe  is  correct, 
it  appears  that  the  Archbishop  was  somewhat  fa- 
natically inclined ;  that  he  was,  in  some  degree, 
iax  in  his  discipline  ;  and  that  he  does  not  appear 
to  have  had  those  views  of  the  Christian  church 
that  the  Reformers  had,  when  they  compiled  the 
ordination  offices. 

But  what  shows  in  a  still  clearer  point  of  light 
the  irregularity  of  GrindaPs  conduct  is,  that  by  the 
act  under  consideration,  he  went  directly  counter 
to  the  principles  of  the  church  over  which  he  pre- 
sided; for  in  the  preface  to  the  ordinal,  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  as  has  been  already  noticed,  that  there 
are  three  orders  of  Apostolic  institution,  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons,  and  that  none  shall  be  es- 
teemed lawful  ministers  who  have  not  been  episco- 
pally  ordained,  or  consecrated.  What  now  shall 
we  think  of  a  man  who  could  thus  fly  in  the  face  of 
his  own  church,  deliberately  violate  what  he  had 
solemnly  engaged  to  maintain,  and  obstinately  per- 
sist in  disobedience  to  the  government,  when,  upon 
a  full  conviction  of  the  mischievous  consequences 
of  prophesying,  it  had  ordered  him  to  suppress 
such  meetings  t  It  will  be  of  no  consequence  to 
say,  that  he  was  a  conscientious,  good  man,  and 
that  whatever  he  did,  was  done  upon  principle. 
That  is  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose.  A  man's 
conviction  of  the  rectitude  of  his  intention,  was 


48  Letter  XV. 

never  considered  by  any  man  in  his  senses  as  a  test 
of  truth.  For  any  thing  that  appears  to  the  con- 
trary, Guy  FauXy  when  he  was  about  to  blow  up 
King,  Lords,  and  Commons,  was  conscientiously 
devoted  to  that  diabolical  work ;  and  our  Saviour 
himself  tells  his  Apostles,  that  they  would  be  per- 
secuted to  death,  by  those  who  would  think  that 
they  were  doing  God  service  by  shedding  their 
blood.  The  utmost,  then,  that  can  be  said  for 
Grindal  is,  that  his  acting  from  conscience  might 
palliate  his  erroneous  conduct,  but  it  can  never 
justify  it. 

There  is,  I  think,  no  doubt  that  the  Archbishop 
Was  a  well  meaning  man.  In  this  respect,  I  do 
not  mean  to  lessen  his  character  in  the  smallest  de- 
gree. But  u  all  is  not  wise  that  wise  men  say,  nor 
good  that  good  men  do."  He  was  generally  charged 
with  remissness,  with  a  fondness  for  the  Calvin* 
istic  scheme,  and  with  over-indulging  delinquents. 
But,  in  my  opinion,  the  greatest  blot  upon  his  cha- 
racter is,  his  violation  of  the  principles  and  the 
laws  of  the  church  over  which  he  presided.  With 
this  declaration  before  him,  that  none  are  lawful  Bi- 
shops, Priests,  and  Deacons,  without  Episcopal  or- 
dination, he  certainly  strained  his  prerogative,  and 
the  license  which  was  granted,  was,  in  law,  good  for 
nothing.  The  words  of  the  license  seem  to  me  to 
imply  a  consciousness  in  him,  that  the  business  was 
not  legal.  The  words  I  mean  are,  As  far  as  lies 
in  us,  and  we  can  lawfully  do  it}  and  as  far  as  the 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  49 

Isws  of  the  kingdom  suffer  us*  But  if  this  be  the 
usual  form,  even  in  cases  which  admit  of  no  doubt, 
then  I  acknowledge  this  observation  has  not  the 
least  force. 

There  is  another  observation  that  I  would  make 
before  I  quit  this  point,  It  is  not  clear  horu  Mor- 
rison was  ordained.  There  was  reformation  upon 
reformation  in  the  church  of  Scotland.  The  pro- 
cedure in  that  country  was  very  different  from  that 
of  England.  In  the  latter,  the  Bishops  and  Clergy 
conducted  the  reformation  calmly  and  deliberately  ; 
examining  scripture,  and  the  primitive  writers,  with 
the  utmost  care  and  attention.  In  the  former,  die 
Bishops  and  Clergy  generally  did  not  reform,  and 
the  reformation,  in  consequence,  was  conducted, 
chiefly,  by  the  laity.  No  one  could  be  at  a  loss  ta 
determine  what  sort  of  reformation  it  would  turn 
out.  Riot,  confusion,  abuse  of  the  Catholics,  demo- 
lition of  venerable  edifices  that  had  been  erected  for 
ages,  destruction  of  private  property,  and  every  spe- 
cies of  violence  were  the  consequences.  But  what 
particularly  respects  my  purpose,  the  regimen  of  the 
primitive  church  was  not  strictly  regarded.  There 
was,  however,  such  a  sense  of  the  antiquity  and  pro- 
priety of  Episcopal  government,  that  something  like 
it  was  established.  Had  the  Bishops  reformed,  no 
doubt,  Episcopacy  would  have  been  established. 
But  as  the  Bishops  still  held  the  Sees,  Superinten- 
dents were  appointed,  who  exercised  Episcopal  ju- 
risdiction ;  but,  unfortunately,  they  were  not  con- 

Vol.  II.  F 


50  Letter  XV. 

secrated  by  Bishops.  The  principle  of  parity  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  thought  of  among  the  jirst 
Scotch  reformers  ;  yet  they  do  not  appear  to  have 
had  a  correct  notion  of  the  ground  and  nature  of 
Episcopacy.  I  cannot  suppose  that  it  was  under  this 
scheme  of  super intendency,  that  Morrison  was  or- 
dained, for  this  plain  reason — The Jirst  book  of  dis- 
ripline  rejected  (strange  as  it  may  appear)  impo- 
sition of  hands  in  ordination  ;  and  the  license  men- 
tions, that  Morrison  was  ordained  by  imposition  of 
hands.  The  church  was  governed  by  those  Super- 
intendents till  the  year  1512,  at  which  time,  all  the 
Popish  Bishops  being  either  dead  or  deprived,  the 
Sees  were  filled  by  officers  bearing  the  titles  of 
Archbishops  and  Bishops  ;  the  old  divisions  of  the 
dioceses  were  restored;  the  patrimony  of  the  church- 
was  properly  applied ;  and  every  Bishop  had  spi- 
ritual jurisdiction  in  his  own  diocese.  But  there 
was  one  circumstance  more  necessary  to  make  this 
a  proper  Episcopacy.  The  consecration  of  these 
Bishops  was,  some  how  or  other,  overlooked  ;  and, 
consequently,  they  were  not  true  and  proper  Bishops; 
they  were  no  more  than  Superintendents,  with  the 
old  titles,  and  with  more  enlarged  powers.  But  in 
every  other  respect,  the  plan  was  coincident  with 
true  and  real  Episcopacy.* 


♦  See  Skinner's  Eccies.  Hist,  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.  p.  204,  205. 
This  author,  not  long  deceased,  was  the  father  of  the  present 
Bishop  Skinner,  the  pious  and  venerable  Primus  of  the  Scotch 
Episcopal  church. 


rtimony  of  the  Reformers,  51 

This  plan  of  government  continued  till  the  year 
1580,  when  Presbyterianism,  sincere  and  genuine, 
was  established  by  means  of  the  incessant  and  vi- 
gorous measures,  and  the  subtle  arts  and  intrigues 
of  Melville  and  his  party.  It  is  highly  probable 
that  Morrison  was  ordained  by  one  of  those  Bi- 
shops; for  his  license  from  Grindal  was  dated  but 
two  years  after  the  abolition  of  this  species  of  Epis- 
copacy. It  is  true,  this  would  not  be  Episcopal  or- 
dination, according  to  the  principles  of  the  church 
of  England,  and  of  the  primitive  church  ;  but  Grin- 
dal  was  not,  it  is  evident,  so  strict  as  the  church  to 
which  he  belonged,  and  from  whose  principles, 
every  one  will  allow,  he  ought  not  to  have  departed, 

The  inference  which  may  be  drawn  from  this  ir- 
regularity of  GrindaPs,  is  not  of  the  least  conse- 
quence to  you  in  any  point  of  view  whatever.  You 
must  show  that  it  affords  a  presumption,  that  the 
church  of  England  does  not  place  Episcopacy  upon 
the  ground  of  divine  right ;  but  I  am  well  satis- 
fied that  you  will  not  exercise  your  ingenuity  upon 
that  point.  If  the  irregularity  of  Grindal  affords  a 
presumption,  that  the  church  of  England  does  not 
consider  Episcopal  ordination  necessary,  then  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  instances  given  by  Dr.  Chandler,  and 
lately  by  Dr.  Hobart,  of  men's  holding  livings  in 
the  diocese  of  Bangor,  who  had  never  received  any 
orders,  affords  a  presumption,  that  she  does  not 
consider  orders  at  all  necessary  to  constitute  a  man 
a  minister  of  Christ.     If  one  instance  of  a  licenc- 


5£  ■     Letter  XV. 

having  been  granted  to  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
affords  you  any  room  for  exultation,  certainly,  seve- 
ral instances  of  mere  laymen's  having  been  licensed 
to  hold  livings,  affords  the  fanatic,  at  least  as  much 
room  for  exulting  in  the  inference,  that  the  church 
of  England  considers  orders  of  no  manner  of  con- 
sequence. Nov/,  Sir,  do  be  candid,  and  allow  the 
latter  to  be  as  good  reasoning  as  the  former. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  for  us  to  form  any  thing 
like  an  adequate  conception  of  the  difficulties  with 
which  the  church  had  to  contend  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth.  Harassed  on  the  one  hand  by  the  Puri- 
tans, and,  on  the  other,  by  the  Papists,  she  had  to 
wink  at  several  things  which  were  inconsistent  with 
her  principles  and  usages.  Her  most  formidable 
enemies  being  the  Papists,  and  the  whole  Protestant 
interest  depending  so  much  upon  her  maintaining 
her  ground,  her  clergy,  while  they  maintained  the 
apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy,  were,  at  the 
same  time,  very  cautious  of  explicitly  inferring  from 
it,  the  invalidity  of  Presbyterian  ordination.  They 
wanted  the  aid  of  the  Puritans,  and  of  the  foreign 
reformed,  against  the  common  enemy;  and  they 
would  have  had  no  reason  to  expect  that,  had  they 
expressly  asserted  that  Presbyterian  orders  in  all 
cases  are  invalid.  Hence  arose  the  salvo  of  a  case 
of  necessity,  and  the  distinction  between  apostolical 
and  divine  institution;  and,  upon  one  or  other  of 
these  principles,  I  have  no  doubt  that  Grindal  acted. 

T  have  taken  up  more  time  with  this  article  than 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers* 

it  really  deserves.  It  must  be  a  desperate  cause 
indeed  that  needs  such  support ;  and  the  urging  of 
this  case,  taking  all  the  circumstances  I  have  men- 
tioned into  the  account,  is  peculiarly  ridiculous. 
The  irregular  conduct  of  Grindal  is  brought  to 
prove  the  Presbyterianism  of  the  Reformers  who 
lived  thirty  years  before  this  event,  and  who  had 
declared  to  all  the  world,  in  the  most  explicit  man- 
ner, that  in  the  primitive  church  there  were  three 
orders,  and  that  none  should  be  considered  as  law- 
ful ministers  of  the  church  of  England,  who  had  not 
been  Episcopally  ordained.  The  conduct  of  a  man 
who  had  deliberately  subscribed  to  the  principles  of 
his  church,  both  as  to  doctrine  and  regimen,  and  who 
had  directly  contradicted  those  principles,  is  pro- 
duced as  a  proof  that  they  are  Presbyterian.  Can 
any  thing  be  more  preposterous  ?  Surely,  Sir,  you 
cannot  be  in  earnest.  Suppose  I  were  to  quote  you 
as  denying  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  succession, 
would  it  be  any  kind  of  proof  that  your  confession 
of  faith  does  not  maintain  that  doctrine  ?  And  of 
what  weight  would  your  belief  be  in  opposition  to 
the  standard  of  your  own  church  ?  Just  nothing  at 
all.  Nothing  can  be  more  fallacious,  nothing  more 
insidious  than  this  procedure  ?  Is  there  any  church 
upon  earth,  every  individual  of  whose  ministers 
perfecdy  accords  with  her  standards  in  principle  ?  I 
will  venture  to  assert  that  there  is  not.  Away  then 
with  such  an  improper  mode  of  discussing  die  sub- 
ject. Its  obvious  design  is  ad  captandum  vulgiis. 
F2 


,4  Letter  XV. 

When  a  doctrine  cannot  be  proved  by  scripture,  or 
reason ;  when  a  fact  cannot  be  substantiated  by  pro- 
per and  sufficient  evidence,  then  A.  B.  and  C.  are 
introduced  to  prove  it.  Men  of  sense  and  learning 
ought  not  to  descend  so  low  as  this. 

Another  of  your  arguments  to  prove  that  the 
church  of  England  does  not  place  Episcopacy  upon 
the  ground  of  divine  right,  so  far  as  to  annul  ordi- 
nation by  Presbyters,  is,  that  the  55th  canon  requires 
the  clergy  to  "  pray  for  the  churches  of  England, 
■Scotland,  and  Ireland,  as  parts  of  Christ's  holy 
catholic  church,  which  is  dispersed  throughout  the 
world." 

This,  Sir,  is  not  the  point  in  dispute  between  us. 
The  question  is  not,  whether  the  church  of  Eng- 
land declares  ordination  by  Presbyters  invalid  j  but 
whether  she  places  Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of 
divine  right?  I  have  proved  from  the  preface  to 
the  ordinal,  and  from  the  declaration  of  the  church, 
that  none  will  be  considered  by  her  lawful  Bishops, 
Priests  and  Deacons,  who  are  not  Episcopally  or- 
dained j  and  from  the  prayers  in  the  ordination  of- 
fices, that  she  maintains  the  divine  right  of  Epis- 
copacy. This  is  all  I  feel  any  concern  about ;  the 
consequence  of  this  principle  is  another  question, 
which  I  am  not  called  upon  at  present  to  discuss. 

There  is,  Sir,  something  very  unfair  in  your 
management  of  this  subject.  The  question  between 
us  simp]  is,  What  is  the  government  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  by  apostolical  and  divine  appointment? 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers:  SS 

We  say  it  is  Episcopal ;  you  say  it  is  Presbyterian. 
To  prove  that  you  are  right  you  quote  some  Epis- 
copalians, who  allow,  under  certain  circumstances, 
the  validity  of  your  orders.  And  although  you  do 
not  expressly  draw  the  inference,  yet  you  evidently 
produce  these  quotations  to  impress  upon  the  minds 
of  your  readers  this  position,  that  Episcopacy  is 
not  a  divine  institution,  because  some  Episcopali- 
ans who  maintain  that  it  is,  at  the  same  time  do 
not  carry  the  principle  so  far  as  to  unchurch  Pres- 
byterians. This,  Sir,  is  not  a  proper  view  of  the 
subject.  Reason  as  much  as  you  please  against 
the  ground  upon  which  we  place  our  regimen  ; 
marshal,  if  you  can  find  them,  fifty  Episcopalians, 
who  assert,  in  opposition  to  the  principles  of  their 
own  church,  that  Episcopacy  is  a  human  institu- 
tion ;  but  do  not  fly  off  to  another  question,  viz, 
What  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  believing 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  institution?  This  is  not 
the  question  we  are  discussing.  Men  frequently 
differ  about  the  consequences  of  principles.  Con- 
sequences are  made  out  by  reasoning;  and  men 
reason  very  differently.  How  strikingly  is  this  the 
case  with  Calvinists!  Some  of  them  admit  without 
any  scruple,  all  the  consequences  with  which  their 
principles  are  charged  ;  others  reject  these  conse- 
quences, and  contend  that  they  do  not  flow  from 
the  doctrines  of  Calvin.  Thus  also  the  Westminster 
divines,  in  their  disputes  with  the  Independents^ 
deny  the  validity  of  ordination  by  laymen,  and 


S6  Letter  XV, 

strenuously  maintain  the  necessity  of  unbroken  suc- 
cession; yet  there  are  some  Presbyterian  ministers, 
who,  while  they  assert  the  divine  institution  of  a  mi- 
nistry, do  not  carry  the  principle  so  far  as  to  invali- 
date lay  ordination.  Just  so  it  is  with  some  Episco- 
palians. They  say  that  maintaining  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  Episcopacy  does  not  invalidate  Presbyte- 
rian ordination.  Whether  those  Presbyterians  and 
Episcopalians  are  consistent,  is  another  question. 

It  may  be  further  observed,  that  those  who  as- 
sert the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  must  ne- 
cessarily be  supposed  to  maintain,  that  a  church 
which  rejects  Episcopacy,  or  cannot  possibly  ob- 
tain it,  (which  is  placing  it  upon  the  most  favour- 
able ground)  is  quo  ad  hoc  imperfect  and  unsound. 
For  if  Episcopacy  rests  upon  divine  institution, 
then  a  Presbyterian  church,  which  wants  Episco- 
pacy, wants  a  divine  institution ;  and,  consequent- 
ly, in  a  very  important  point,  must  be  defective. 
And  whether  a  conscientious  man,  convinced  of 
this,  can  derive  any  comfort  from  the  concession, 
that  this  principle  does  not  go  so  far  as  totally  to 
unchurch;  or  whether  he  can  continue  a  member  of 
such  a  church  consistently  with  the  duty  of  being  a 
member  of  a  complete,  sound,  and  scriptural  church, 
is  a  question  of  great  importance,  and,  therefore, 
deserves  the  attention  of  every  serious  Christian. 

The  next  observation  which  you  make,  in  the 
pursuit  of  your  object,  is  the  following:  "Dr. 
Warner-,  a  learned  Episcopal  historian,  declares, 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  57 

that  Archbishop  Bancroft  was  the  first  man  in  the 
church  of  England,  who  preached  up  the  divine 
right  of  Episcopacy.  The  same  is  asserted  by 
many  other  Episcopal  writers ;  and  this  passage 
from  Warner  is  quoted  with  approbation  by  Bishop 
White,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  his  Case  of  the  Episco- 
pal Churches,  in  showing  that  the  doctrine  which 
founds  Episcopacy  on  divine  right,  has  never  been 
embraced  by  the  great  body  of  the  most  esteemed 
divines  of  the  church  of  England.1'' 

Here,  Sir,  you  have  shifted  your  ground  again. 
The  fifty-fifth  canon  has  been  just  quoted  to  prove 
that  those  who  had  high  notions  of  Episcopacy, 
or,  in  other  words,  maintained  its  divine  origin,  did 
not,  however,  carry  that  principle  so  far  as  to  un- 
church Presbyterians.  This,  I  have  observed,  is 
not  the  question  in  the  present  dispute.  You  now 
come  to  the  precise  point  of  debate  ;  and  upon  this 
point,  if  I  do  not  deceive  myself,  you  will  be  easily 
vanquished. 

You  assert,  Sir,  after  Dr.  Warner,  that  "  Ban* 
croft  was  the  first  man  who  preached  up  the  divine 
right  of  Episcopacy."  How  any  man  with  the  or- 
dinal and  ordination  offices  before  him  can  venture 
this  assertion,  is  beyond  my  comprehension.  I 
have  shown,  in  my  view  of  the  matter,  beyond  the 
possibility  of  refutation,  that  the  ordinal  and  offices 
of  ordination  declare  Episcopacy  to  be  a  divine 
institution.  This  doctrine  was  then  made  by  the 
Reformers,  a  standard  principle  of  the  church  of 


58  Letter  XV. 

England.  After  this,  the  first  defence  of  Episco- 
pacy, upon  the  ground  of  divine  right,  was  by  Whit- 
gift,  and  not  by  Bancroft.  But  this  is  really  of  no 
importance.  It  was  needless  to  write  an  elaborate 
defence  of  Episcopacy,  till  it  was  attacked.  The 
first  attack  made  upon  it  was  by  Cartwright  and 
his  associates,  in  the  year  1572,  twenty-four  years 
after  the  reformation.  They  published  a  book  en- 
titled, An  Admonition  to  the  Parliament;  the  de- 
sign of  which  was  to  subvert  the  government  of 
Bishops.  An  answer  was  given  to  this  book  by 
Dr.  Whitgift,  then  Vice- Chancellor  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge.  Strype  says  of  this  book,  that 
"  it  contained  a  very  learned  and  satisfactory  vin- 
dication of  the  church  of  England,  and  especially 
of  the  government  of  it  by  Bishops."*  Some  years 
afterwards,  Sir  F.  Knollys,  a  great  puritan,  complains 
of  Whitgift,  that  in  this  book  he  "  had  claimed,  in 
the  right  of  Bishops,  a  superiority  belonging  to  them 
over  all  the  inferior  clergy  from  God's  own  ordi- 
nance."! In  1593  Whit  gift,  when  promoted  to  the 
see  of  Canterbury,  wrote  a  letter  to  Beza,  in  which  he 
expostulates  with  him  for  intermeddling  in  the  dis- 
pute between  the  church  and  the  puritans.  In  that 
letter  he  says,  "  We  make  no  doubt  but  that  the 
Episcopal  degree,  which  we  bear,  is  an  institution 
apostolic  and  divine  ;  and  so  hath  always  been  held 
by  a  continual  course  of  times,  from  the  Apostles  to 

•  Life  of  Whitgift,  p.  33.        f  Ibid.  \x  34?. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  59 

this  very  age  of  ours."  Again :  *  You  may  re- 
member, learned  Sir,  the  beginnings  of  that  Epis- 
copacy, which  you  make  to  be  only  of  human  in- 
stitution, are  referred  by  the  Fathers,  with  one 
mouth,  to  the  Aposdes,  as  the  authors  thereof;  and 
that  the  Bishops  were  appointed  as  successors  of 
the  Apostles ;  especially  in  certain  points  of  their 
function.  And  what  Aaron  was  to  his  sons,  and  to 
the  Levites,  this  the  Bishops  were  to  the  Priests 
and  Deacons ;  and  so  esteemed  of  the  Fathers  to 
be  by  divine  institution."* 

It  is  now,  Sir,  proved  incontrovertibly,  that  your 
guide,  Dr.  Warner,  was  in  an  error,  when  he  as- 
serted that  "  Bancroft  was  the  first  that  preached  up 
the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy."  It  was  preached 
by  the  Reformers,  and  made  by  them  a  fixed  prin- 
ciple of  the  church;  and  as  soon  as  the  church  was 
attacked  by  the  Puritans,  it  was  defended  first  by 
Whit  gift,  and  afterwards  by  Bancroft  and  others, 
upon  the  ground  of  divine  right. 

You  next,  Sir,  tell  us  a  story  of  Dr.  Holland's 
checking  Laud,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  Canter* 
-bury,  for  asserting,  in  a  public  disputation,  the  divine 
right  of  Episcopacy.  What  Dr.  Holland  thought, 
is  of  no  more  consequence  than  what  you,  or  /think. 
We  ought  not  to  employ  ourselves  in  collecting 
opinions ;  that  is  a  very  irksome,  and  after  all,  a 
verv  useless  employment*    Our  business  is  to  ex- 

•  Life  of  Whitgift,  p.  460. 


m  Letter  XV. 

hibit  all  the  evidence  that  can  be  produced  for  or 
against  Episcopacy.  This  is  all  that  the  eye  of 
philosophy  looks  for ;  any  thing  further  may  be 
calculated  to  catch  the  ignorant ;  but  can  never  have 
the  least  weight  with  a  logical  inquirer  after  truth. 

You  go  on.  "  The  reformation  in  Scotland  com- 
menced in  the  year  1560.  The  constitution  of  that 
church  was  formed,  as  every  one  knows,  on  the 
Presbyterian  plan."  Excuse -me,  Sir;  every  one  does 
not  know  that  to  have  been  the  case.  On  the  con- 
trary, every  one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  that  period,  knows  that  the  church  of  Scotland  was 
not  settled  upon  that  plan.  It  is  an  essential  princi- 
ple of  Presbyterianism,  that  Christ  founded  the  mi- 
nistry upon  the  ground  of  parity;  consequently,  if 
this  were  true,  parity  of  ministers  must  be  a  divine 
institution.  But  this  principle  is  rejected  by  the  Re- 
formers of  the  church  of  Scotland;  and  there  cannot 
be  any  doubt,  that  Episcopacy  would  have  been  esta- 
blished, had  the  Bishops  reformed.  There  was  also 
another  circumstance,  which  contributed  much  to 
prevent  the  establishment  of  that  regimen.  By  the 
constitution  of  the  kingdom,  the  Bishops  made  one 
of  the  three  estates  of  the  realm  ;  it  was,  therefore, 
supposed  that  the  Popish  Bishops  could  not  be  le- 
gally dispossessed.  They  were,  therefore,  left  in 
their  sees,  with  all  their  revenues,  and  all  their 
temporal  powers.  But  this  notwithstanding,  Pro- 
testant Bishops  might  have  been  consecrated ;  for 
it  is  not  necessary  that  Bishops  should  have  tern- 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  61 

poral  jurisdiction,  and  great  revenues.  This  un- 
happy error  contributed  much  to  prevent  the  esta- 
blishment of  a  proper  Episcopacy.  But  still  parity 
was  disclaimed,  and  Superintendents,  with  Epis- 
copal jurisdiction  were  established.  Bishop  Sage, 
in  his  Presbytery  Untwisted,  names  thirty  points 
of  superiority,  which  the  Superintendents  had  over 
the  Parish  Ministers.  In  jurisdiction,  they  had  all 
the  powers  of  Bishops,  and  there  was  nothing  want- 
ing but  consecration  to  have  made  them  such.  This, 
Sir,  was  the  plan  of  the  reformation  of  the  church 
of  Scotland,  and  not  the  Presb)Tterian  plan,  as  you 
assert ;  and  with  which  (strange  it  is !)  you  sup- 
pose every  one  to  be  acquainted."* 

You  go  on,  Sir,  in  one  continued  strain  of  error. 
You  say,  "  This  form"  (the  Presbyterian)  "  was 
retained  until  the  year  1610,  when  prelacy  was  vio- 
lently introduced  against  the  sense  of  the  nation." 

I  have  shown  that  the  church  of  Scotland  was  not 
formed  upon  the  principle  of  parity,  but  of  impa- 
rity ;  and,  consequently,  Presbyterianism,  which 
was  not  introduced  in  1560,  could  not  have  been 
retained  till  1610.  The  truth  is,  that  it  had  no  ex- 
istence till  1580,  twenty  years  after  the  reforma- 
tion. And  before  Presbyterian  government  was 
established,  a  still  nearer  approach  to  Episcopacv 
took  place  in  the  year  1572.  The  plan  of  Superin- 
tendents was  laid  aside ;  Clergymen,  with  the  old 

*  See  Sage,  Collier,  Spotswood,  Skinner,  and  Burnet. 

Vol.  II.  G 


62  Letter  XV. 

tides  of  Archbishops  and  Bishops  were  appointed ; 
they  were  put  in  possession  of  the  revenues  of  the 
Sees,  restored  to  the  ancient  jurisdiction,  and  made, 
as  formerly,  the  third  estate  of  the  realm;  and  this 
government  (although  not  strictly  Episcopal,  be- 
cause the  Bishops  were  not  consecrated)  continued 
till  the  year  1584.* — Unaccountable,  indeed,  Sir, 
it  is*,  that  you  should  not  be  acquainted  with  these 
notorious  facts. 

A  third  error  is  contained  in  the  following  words. 
**  In  that  year,  (1610),  Spots-wood,  Lamb,  and  Mfc 
milton,  were  consecrated  Bishops  in  London,  by  some 
of  the  English  prelates;  and,  on  their  return  home, 
^ey  imparted  the  Episcopal  dignity  to  a  number 
of  others.  As  they  had  been  Presbyters  before  this 
time,  Archbishop  Bancroft  proceeded  to  their  corir 
secration  as  Bishops,  without  requiring  them  to  be 
previously  re -ordained  as  Priests;  expressly  deli- 
vering it  as  his  opinion,  that  their  former  Presby- 
terian ordination  was  valid." 

Surely,  Sir,  you  must  know  that  there  is  a  very 
different  account  given  of  this  matter  by  Hey  tin, 
Collier,  and  Grey.  Bancroft,  according  to  them, 
reasoned  in  a  very  different  manner.  He  said  *4  that 
there  was  no  necessity  for  the  Scotch  Bishops  pass- 
ing through  the  intermediate  orders  of  Deacon  and 
Priest;  for  that  the  Episcopal  character  might  be 


*  Sage's  Presbytery  Untwisted,  p.  270,  and  Collier's  Eccles. 
;Iist.  yol.  ii.  p.  534. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  63 

fully  conveyed  at  a  single  consecration  ;"*  and  for 
this  he  cited  two  precedents  in  the  ancient  church. 
The  examples  were  Ambrose,  Bi3hop  of  Milan,  and 
Nectarius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople. 

This  is  a  much  better  account  of  the  transaction 
than  you  have  given.  You  acknowledge  that  Ban- 
croft placed  Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of  divine 
right ;  we  may,  therefore,  very  reasonably  suppose, 
that  he  would  act  upon  a  principle  that  is  more  con- 
sonant to  that  belief,  than  the  one  you  imagine  he 
acted  upon.  The  principle,  that  the  highest  order 
necessarily  comprehends  the  powers  of  the  inferior 
orders,  is  perfectly  correct,  and  may,  therefore,  in 
uncommon  cases,  be  admitted  ;  although,  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  things,  it  will  be  found  expedient 
to  proceed  in  a  different  manner. 

I  really,  Sir,  am  heartily  tired  of  examining  your 
statements.  Some  of  them  are  so  totally  different 
from  the  facts,  and  others  are  placed  in  so  unfair  a 
point  of  view,  that  I  believe  our  readers  will  think 
me  fairly  discharged  from  noticing  every  minute 
particular  of  this  nature.  But  allowing  that  you  have 
fairly  represented  the  assertions  of  some  Episcopa- 
lians, and  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  others ;  pray, 
Sir,  to  what  does  it  amount  r  Is  truth  to  be  tried  by 
the  opinions  of  a  few  great  men  t  Does  reason  say 
it  ought  to  be  ?  Certainly  not.  We  must  examine 
it  by  its  proper  evidence  ;  and  when  it  is  established 
by  that  evidence,  it  matters  not  how  many  narr.°°. 

*  Collier's  Ecclcs.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  n.  702. 


64  Letter  XV. 

can  be  brought  against  it.  Were  I  disputing  with 
you  upon  what  are  called  the  Cahinistic  doctrines, 
I  suspect  it  would  excite  in  you  some  degree  of  in- 
dignation, were  I  to  give  you  a  long  list  of  Presby- 
terian  divines  who  have  written  against  those  doc- 
trines. You  would,  I  believe,  cut  the  matter  short, 
and  tell  me,  at  once,  that  the  truth  of  the  Calvin- 
id  tic  doctrines  is  not  to  be  tried  in  that  manner,  but 
by  reason  and  scripture  j  and  if  they  can  be  esta- 
blished upon  these  grounds,  it  matters  not  how 
many  Ministers  of  a  Cahinistic  church  are  opposed 
to  them.  This  would  be  perfectly  correct,  and  no 
reasonable  reply  could  be  made  to  it. 

This  observation  may  be  applied  with  the  strictest 
propriety  to  the  present  discussion.  If  I  have  proved 
from  scripture  and  the  ancients,  that  Episcopacy  is 
a  divine  institution,  then  the  matter  is  settled  ;  and 
if  you  could  produce  fifty  times  as  many  names  as 
you  have  produced,  it  would  be  to  no  purpose,  but 
to  mislead  the  unthinking.  The  argument,  (if  it  be 
not  a  prostitution  of  language  to  use  the  word  in 
•his  case)  is,  however,  of  a  popular  kind,  and  ad- 
mirably adapted  to  make  an  impression  upon  those 
who  know  not  the  nature  of  evidence,  and,  conse- 
quently, can  have  no  fixed  principles  of  reasoning. 

But  if  I  have  not  established  diocesan  Episcopacy 
upon  the  grounds  of  scripture  and  antiquity,  my 
showing  that  you  have  misrepresented  Episcopa] 
writers,  is  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose.  In  the 
eye  of  a  philosopher,  the  controversy  was  ended 


•   Testimony  of  the  Reformers,  65 

with  the  testimony  of  scripture,  interpreted  by  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church.  And  the  question 
concerning  the  principles  of  the  church  of  Eng&md, 
and  of  her  Reformers,  was  closed  with  the  evidence 
produced  to  prove  that  they  are  Episcopal.  What 
a  few  individuals  then  may  say  or  think,  is  altoge- 
ther irrelevant  to  the  point  in  dispute.  Notwith- 
standing this  cannot  be  denied,  yet  I  shall  consider, 
in  toy  next  letter,  what  you  call  the  concessions  of 
Episcopalians  upon  the  subject  of  Episcopacy. 

It  is  also,  I  conceive,  needless  for  me  to  take  a 
particular  view  of  the  sentiments  of  Luther,  and 
Cahi:i,  and  Beza.  and  other  Reformers;  that  has 
been  sufficiently  done  by  Dure!!,  and  many  others 
since  his  day,  and  lately  by  Dr.  Hobart,  It  is,  I 
conceive,  beyond  reasonable  controversy,  that  Cal- 
vin, at  first,  did  plead  necessity  for  his  departure 
from  Episcopal  government;  and  that  he  did  ac- 
knowledge it  to  have  been  the  government  of  all 
the  churches  upon  earth,  from  the  times  of  the" 
Aposdes,  for  1500  years  together.*-  "  But  his  ex- 
traordinary Gpinion  of  Episcopacy  will  farther  ap- 
pear in  a  letter  which  he  and  Bullinger,  and  other 
learned  men  beyond  Sea,  wrote  in  1549  to  Edxvard 
the  sixth,  offering  to  make  him  their  defender,  and 
to  have  Bishops  in  their  churches  for  better  unity 
and  concord  amongst  them,  as  appears  from  Stn<pes 
memorial  of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  as  likewise  from 


Inst.  Lib  *.v.  chap.  iv.  sect.  2. 
G2 


66  Letter  XV. 

a  writing  of  Archbishop  Abbot's,  found  among 
the  manuscripts  of  Archbishop  Usher"*  Unfor- 
tunately the  letter  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Popish 
Bishops  Gardiner  and  Bonner,  who,  in  the  names 
of  the  Reformers,  returned  a  surly  answer  to  it. 
"  From  that  time,"  says  Strype,  "  John  Calvin  and 
the  church  of  England  were  at  variance  in  several 
points,  which  otherwise,  through  God's  mercy,  had 
been  qualified,  if  those  papers  of  his  proposals  had 
been  discovered  unto  the  Queen's  majesty  during 
John  Calvin's  life.  But  being  not  discovered  until, 
or  about  the  sixth  year  of  her  Majesty's  reign,  her 
Majesty  much  lamented  they  were  not  found  sooner  j 
which  she  expressed  before  her  council,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  her  great  friends  Sir  Henry  Sidney,  and 
Sir  V/illiam  Cecil  "'f-— <Had  it  not  been  for  this  un- 
fortunate accident,  in  all  probability,  the  whole  re- 
formed church  would  have  been  Episcopal ;  and,  in 
consequence,  the  animosity,  and  mischief  which 
resulted  from  ministerial  parity,  have  been  pre- 
vented. 

As  to  Luther,  "  he  professes,  that  if  the  Popish 
Bishops  would  cease  to  persecute  the  gospel,"  he 
and  those  of  his  communion  "  would  acknowledge 
them  as  their  Fathers,  and  willingly  obey  their  au- 
thority, which  (says  he)  we  find  supported  by  the 
word  of  God,"  Consequently,  in  his  and  their 
opinion,  Episcopacy  was  an  Apostolic  institutions 

*  Chandler's  Appeal  defended,  p.  238. 
t  Strype's  Life  of  Parker,  p.  7Q. 


Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  67 

And  Melancthon,  one  of  the  greatest  characters 
among  the  reformed,  "  lays  the  blame  on  the  cru- 
elty of  the  Popish  Bishops,  that  that  canonical  po- 
lity was  destroyed,  which  (saith  he)  xve  so  earnestly 
desired  to  preserve ;"  and  bids  the  Papists  consider 
u  what  account  they  will  render  to  God  for  thus 
scattering  his  church."* 

As  to  the  church  of  Holland,  it  is  well  known 
that  her  divines  also  pleaded  necessity  for  their  de- 
parture from  Episcopacy.  Bogerman,  the  President 
cf  the  Synod  of  Dort,  lamented  to  the  British  Bi- 
shops who  attended  that  assembly,  the  unhappy 
situation  cf  their  church  from  a  want  of  Bishops ; 
Nobis  non  licet  esse  tarn  beatis,  was  his  solemn  de- 
claration. 

It  is  needless  to  enter  into  a  more  minute  detail 
of  the  testimonies,  which  the  foreign  Reformers 
have  left  upon  record,  in  favour  of  the  excellency, 
expediency,  and  Apostolical  institution  of  Episco- 
pacy. Enough  has  been  done  to  show,  upon  a  ge- 
neral view,  that  the  regimen  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land was  formed  upon  a  principle  of  imparity  by 
Apostolic  institution;  of  the  church  of  Scotland x 
and  the  Lutheran  churches  in  German:/,  upon  the 
same  principle,  but  upon  the  ground  of  expediency; 
of  the  church  of  Sweden  and  Denmark,  upon  the 
principle  of  Apostolical  imparity  ;  and  that  the 
churches  of  Geneva  and  Holland  wished  for  Epis- 
copacy, and  plead  necessity  for  their  departure 

*  Chandler's  Appeal  defended,  p.  239. 


68  Letter  XV. 

from  it.  In  a  short  time,  however,  they  found  it 
more  consistent,  and  more  convenient  to  change 
their  ground;  and  to  justify,  by  the  best  reasons 
which  they  could  invent,  what  at  first  they  very 
modestly  excused. 

Before  I  close  this  letter,  I  shall  make-  one  or 
two  observations. 

1.  It  appears  from  history,  that  every  church 
upon  earth,  before  the  reformation,  was  Episcopal; 
and  that  there  were  no  disputes  about  Ecclesiastical 
regimen  before  that  period ;  for  the  notion  started 
by  some  cf  the  schoolmen,  that  Bishops  are  not  a 
superior  order,  but  a  superior  degree  of  the  priest- 
hood, cannot  be  called  a  dispute  about  the  origin  of 
Episcopacy.  It  must,  therefore,  strike  every  reflect- 
ing mind  as  a  most  wonderful  thing,  that  for  1500 
years  there  should  have  been  no  diversity  of  opinion 
upon  the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  if  parity,  according 
to  some  modern  Christians,  had  been  established  by 
the  Aposdes ;  or  if,  according  to  others,  they  had  left 
the  government  of  the  church  to  human  arrange- 
ment. There  is,  perhaps,  nothing  about  which  men 
differ  more  than  about  forms  of  government.  In  the 
very  nature  of  things,  it  must  be  so.  It  may,  there- 
fore, I  think,  be  fairly  asserted,  that  it  was  morally 
impossible  for  the  whole  Christian  world  to  have 
agreed  in  the  Episcopal  form  of  government,  if  it 
had  been  left  to  men  to  determine  for  themselves 
what  form  they  would  adopt.  Upon  no  principle, 
it  appears  to  me,  could  such  uniformity  prevail,  but 


■     Testimony  of  the  Reformers.  6$ 

upon  this — that  the  Episcopal  government  was  esta- 
blished by  Apostolic  authority;  and  that,  therefore, 
Christians  did  not  think  themselves  at  liberty  to 
alter  it. 

The  next  observation  that  I  would  make  is  this— 
that  although  some  of  the  reformed,  either  from 
an  unhappy  necessity,  or  from  an  imperfect  view  of 
the  evidence  by  which  Episcopacy  is  supported,  or 
from  that  pernicious  principle,  that  the  government 
of  the  church  ought  to  be  accommodated  to  the  go- 
vernment of  the  state,  did  depart  from  the  primi- 
tive regimen;  yet,  at  this  day,  nine  tenths  of  the 
Christian  world  are  Episcopal.  This,  I  presume, 
no  one  will  controvert.  Now,  although  I  should 
not  choose  to  assert,  without  any  qualification, 
that  universality  of  belief  and  practice  in  this  case 
is  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  Apostolic  origin  of  Epis- 
copacy; yet,  I  do  assert,  that  when  this  univer- 
sality can  be  traced  up  to  the  Apostolic  age,  that  it 
is  a  clear  and  decisive  proof  of  the  divine  source 
of  this  mode  of  government.  Upon  this  argument 
I  shall  say  no  more  at  present,  as  I  purpose  to  ex- 
hibit it,  in  a  future  letter,  in  ever)  point  of  view  in 
which  I  am  able  to  place  it.  I  have  just  introduced 
the  observation  here  to  show,  that  the  few  devia- 
tions from  Episcopal  regimen,  which  unhappily  oc- 
curred at  the  reformation,  are  but  as  the  dust  upon 
the  balance  ;  and  that  if  we  must  count  numbers, 
this  mode  of  trial,  as  well  as  every  other,  is  decid- 
edly in  our  favour. 


(    76    ) 


LETTER  XVI 


Rev.  Sir, 

I  O  notice  all  the  intimations,  inferences,  and  po- 
sitive, unfounded  assertions  in  your  letters,  would 
necessarily  extend  this  discussion  to  an  intolerable 
length.  I  shall,  therefore,  bring  to  view  only  those 
assertions,  which  are  best  calculated  to  mislead  the 
unlearned  and  the  unwary. 

What  further  strikes  me  as  worthy  of  notice  in 
your  sixth  letter  is,  first,  your  assertion,  that  the 
church  of  Sweden,  although  she  has  officers  with 
the  title  of  Bishops,  yet  that  those  Bishops  are  no 
more  than  Superintendents,  such  as  govern  the  Lu- 
theran churches  in  Germany, 

In  answer  to  this,  I  have  nothing  more  to  do  than 
to  refer  you  to  your  own  quotation  from  Mosheim* 
He  is  undoubtedly  good  authority  upon  this  point. 
He  says,  "  The  internal  government  of  the  Lutheran 
church  seems  equally  removed  from  Episcopacy  on 
the  one  hand,  and  from  Presbyterianism  on  the 
other,  if  we  except  the  kingdom  of  Sweden  and 
Denmark,  which  retain  the  form  of  ecclesiastical 
government  that  preceded  the  reformation,  purged 
indeed  from  the  superstitions  and  abuses  that  ren- 
dered it  so  odious." 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth,    7i 

The  form  of  government  preceding  the  refor- 
mation, was  undoubtedly  Episcopal ;  and  this  form, 
Mosheim  says,  was  retained ;  consequendy,  the 
Swedish  church  is  strictly  Episcopal.  For  this  rea- 
son, a  Presbyter  of  that  church  would  not  be  re- 
ordained  by  our  Bishops  ;  while  a  Minister  of  the 
Lutheran  church  in  Germany,  or  in  this  country, 
would  be  re-ordained ;  because  the  Lutherans,  both 
here  and  there,  have  not  Bishops,  bat  Superin- 
tendents. 

You  observe,  Sir,  that  "  several  of  the  foregoing 
remarks  apply  to  the  United  Brethren,  or  Moravi- 
ans. They,  indeed,  have  Bishops  in  their  churches, 
but  explicidy  renounce  all  claim  of  divine  right  for 
their  system."  They  have  then,  it  seems,  by  your 
own  acknowledgment,  a  valid  Episcopacy.  In  this, 
you  are  undoubtedly  correct.  Archbishop  Potter , 
when  the  Moravians  first  appeared  in  England,  par- 
ticularly examined  their  Episcopacy,  and  pronounc- 
ed it  Apostolical.  Now,  this  is  their  own  opinion 
of  it,  as  well  as  the  opinion  of  the  English  divines. 
If,  then,  in  their  own  opinion,  it  is  founded  upon 
Apostolical  institution,  sanctioned  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  it  must  necessarily  be  of  divine  appointment; 
and  consequently,  as  the  power  of  ordaining  was 
from  the  beginning  attached  to  the  Apostles,  and 
their  successors,  the  Bishops,  wherever  that  order 
is  wanting,  the  proper  ordaining  officer  is  wanting. 
This  being  the  case,  if  they  do  not  claim  a  divine 
right  for  their  Episcopacy,  and  do  not  re-ordain 


M 

72  Letter  XVI. 

those  that  were  ordained  by  Presbyters,  it  appears 
to  me,  that  they  act  very  inconsistently.  For  their 
Episcopacy  is  either  a  divine,  or  a  human  institu- 
tion ;  there  can  be  no  medium*  If  a  human,  then 
it  is  not  the  primitive,  Apostolical  Episcopacy.  If 
a  divine  institution,  then  it  cannot  admit  ordination 
by  mere  Presbyters.  I  appeal  to  yourself,  Sir, 
and  to  Dr.  Mason,  and  Mr.  M^Leod,  whether,  if 
Episcopacy  be  a  divine  institution,  and  the  power  of 
ordaining  be  attached  to  Bishops,  and  to  them  only, 
it  is  not  inconsistent  to  admit  ordination  by  Pres- 
byters? I  am  sure  your  two  coadjutors  argue  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  manner,  with  respect  to  Presby- 
terian ordination ;  and,  I  think,  that  it  necessarily 
results  from  several  of  your  own  positions.  You 
would  all  condemn  ordination  by  lay-hands,  and 
would  not  suffer  a  man  ordained  in  that  manner  to 
officiate  among  you.  But  why,  Sir,  do  you  act 
thus  ?  Can  you  produce  from  scripture  a  passage 
which  condemns  lay  ordination  ?  Or  can  you  pro- 
duce an  express  precept  for  ordination  by  Presby- 
ters ?  I  am  certain,  that  you  would  all  answer, 
We  cannot ;  but  we  can  produce  what  is  equiva- 
lent; that  is,  Apostolical  practice;  and  as  the  Apos- 
tles acted  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in 
settling  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church, 
their  practice  is  a  sure  guide  and  warrant  to  us. 
This,  I  am  persuaded,  would  be  the  answer  from 
you,  and  the  other  named  gentlemen,  and  from 
every  consistent  Presbyterian.    Now,  this  is  pre- 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  oj  the  Truth.     7.3 

cisely  the  manner  in  which  we  reason  with  respect  to 
Episcopacy.  You  cannot,  therefore,  find  fault  with 
us  for  condemning  Presbyterian  ordination,  without; 
involving  yourselves  in  the  most  palpable  inconsis-. 
tency.  You  say,  lay  ordination  is  invalid,  because 
there  is  no  warrant  in  scripture  for  it ;  consequent- 
ly, the  Moravians,  and  those  English  Episcopalians, 
who  assert  the  Apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacy, 
and  yet  admit,  that  ordination  by  Presbyters  is. 
valid,  are  grossly  inconsistent  with  themselves. 
But,  Sir,  our  church  stands  clear  of  this  inconsis- 
tency. She  declares  the  order  of  Bishops  to  be 
Apostolical  and  Divine  ;  and,  therefore,  requires  all 
who  have  been  ordained  by  Presbyttrs  to  be  Epis- 
copally  ordained,  before  she  admits  them  to  mi- 
nister in  holy  things. 

Another  of  your  witnesses  is,  the  Methodist 
church.  You  say,  "  In  order  to  swell  the  list  of 
Episcopal  churches  as  much  as  possible,  the  Metho- 
dist church  is  frequently  represented  as  such.'7 
Represented  as  such  !  Pray,  Sir,  by  whom  ?  You 
must  mean,  by  us,  if  you  mean  any  thing  to  your 
purpose.  Sir,  it  is  impossible  that  you  should  be 
ignorant  that  we  consider  the  Methodist  Episcopacy 
as  good  for  nothing.  It  is  impossible  that  you 
should  be  ignorant,  that  our  Bishops  re-ordain  all 
that  come  over  from  them  to  us.  Several  instances 
have  occurred  in  this  city.  If  even  one  of  their 
Bishops  were  to  conform  to  our  church,  he  must 
submit  to  be  ordained,  first  a  Deacon,  and  then  u 

Vol.  II.  H 


j 


Letter  5CVI. 


Presbyter.  This,  Sir,  you  must  certainly  know. 
How  is  it  then,  that  you  can  intimate,  that  we 
admit  the  Methodist  Episcopacy,  for  the  sake  of 
swelling  the  list  of  Episcopal  churches?  No,  Sir, 
we  not  only  consider  them  as  non-episcopal ;  but 
also  as  the  most  wanton  schismatics  that  have  ever 
disgraced  the  Christian  church.  For  they  agree 
with  us  in  all  doctrinal  points,  they  admit  the  vali- 
dity of  our  Episcopal  orders,  and  they  have  a  Li- 
turgy, taken  from  ours,  with  no  material  alterations. 
They  do  not,  I  believe,  often  use  it.  Nor  is  this  to 
be  expected  from  a  people  so  enthusiastic.  Like 
the  Pharisees  of  old,  they  say,  and  do  not.  They 
admit  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  a  Liturgy, 
by  establishing  one  ;  and  they  contradict  and  con- 
demn themselves,  by  not  using  it. 

You  proceed,  Sir,  to  observe  of  the  Methodists, 
that  u  Mr.  Wesley,  the  venerable  founder  of  that 
church,  when  he  undertook,  a  number  of  years  ago, 
to  digest  a  plan  for  its  external  organization,  espe- 
cially in  the  United  States,  formally  avowed  himself 
to  be  of  the  opinion  with  Lord  Chancellor  King, 
that  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  in  the  primitive  church, 
were  the  same.  And  in  perfect  conformity  with 
this  belief,  he  himself,  being  only  a  Presbyter  in 
the  church  of  England,  united  with  other  Presby- 
ters in  ordaining  Ministers  for  his  new  church. 
These  Presbyters  ordained  the  first  Methodist 
Bishops,  from  whom  all  succeeding  ordinations  in 
that  body  have  been  derived." 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth, 

All  this,  Sir,  is  perfectly  correct,  Mr.  John 
Wesley  did  as  you  say  ;  and  that  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  his  solemn  subscriptions  when  he  was 
ordained,  to  his  repeated  declarations  through  a 
long  li£e,  and  to  numerous,  strong,  and  conclusive 
reasons,  which  he  had  published  against  separating 
from  the  church  of  England,  But  this  is  not  all : 
John  Wesley,  as  appears  from  the  correspondence 
of  Dr.  C:ke  with  Bishop  White,  was  not  satisfied 
with  himself  for  the  step  which  he  had  taken. 
Doubts  about  the  validity  of  the  orders  of  his  new 
fangled  Bishops  appear  to  me  to  have  troubled  his 
mind,  as  well  as  Dr.  trie's,  who  was  one  of  those 
Bishops.  Coke,  therefore,  writes  to  Bishop  White, 
offering  to  give  up  their  spurious  Episcopacy,  and 
to  return  to  the  bosom  of  the  church,  provided  the 
Methodists  could  be  indulged  in  some  of  their  pe- 
culiarities. But  their  requisitions  could  not  be 
complied  with,  and,  of  course,  the  whole  fell  to  the 
ground.  This  transaction  was  an  implicit  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  invalidity  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy.* Upon  these  facts  it  may  be  expedient  to 
make  two  or  three  reflections. 

First.  The  whole  conduct  of  John  Wesley,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  accounts  of  this  transaction  at  Bris- 
>rA,  given  us  by  Coke,  Whitehead,  and  Charles  Wes- 
ley, convinces  me  that  John  Wesley,  at  the  very 
time  that  he  thus  abandoned  Apostolic  usage,  was 

*  Ses  a  pamphlet  lat<f  I  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  K>v 


75  Letter  XVI. 

not  satisfied  with  the  correctness  of  his  own  con- 
duct. Charles  Wesley  says^  in  his  letter  to  Dr. 
Chandler,  which  has  been  published  and  republished 
in  this  country,  that  he  was  at  his  brother's  elbow 
all  the  time,  and  that  he  did  not  give  him  the  least 
hint  of  his  intention.  He  was  afraid  of  encounter- 
ing his  brother  Charles's  arguments  against  such  a 
measure  ;  for  Charles  was  very  primitive  in  his  no- 
tions of  Episcopacy.  Another  circumstance  which 
convinces  me  that  jfohn  Wesk'fs  mind  was  not 
quite  at  ease  when  he  assumed  the  Episcopal  cha- 
racter, is,  that  he  was  evidently  persuaded  to  take 
that  very  unjustifiable  step  by  Coke,  and  two  or  three 
others,  and  that  it  did  not  originate  from  himself. 
I  le  appears  to  me  to  have  yielded  rather  to  impor- 
tunity than  to  conviction.  A  third  reason  is,  that 
he  was  evidently  ashamed  of  the  whole  business  ; 
tor  the  pretended  consecration  to  the  Episcopal  of- 
fi:e  was  not  performed  in  public,  but  in  a  private 
room  ;  thus  realizing,  as  Charles  Wesley  says,  "  the 
Xags-llead  ordination,  and  robbing  his  friends  of 
their  boasting."  The  last  reason  for  my  conviction 
i:,  what  I  have  already  mentioned,  that  he  after* 
wards  wished  to  retrace  his  steps,  and  to  undo,  as 
far  as  he  could,  what  he  had  done.  Taking  all  these 
circumstances  together,  I  am  satisfied,  that  John 
Wesley  acted  from  a  doubting  mind,  if  not  abso- 
lutely in  contradiction  to  his  own  conviction* 

But,  admitting  that  he  was  really  convinced  by 
Lord  King 4  yet,  I  think,  that  Charles  Wesley's  ex- 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.     77 

cuse  for  him  is  the  best  that  can  possibly  be  made — 
"  My  brother  was  eighty-two  years  of  age  when  he 
took  this  fatal  step." 

The  other  observation  that  I  shall  make  upon  this 
rash  measure  is,  the  great  danger,  and  mischievous 
consequences  of  departing  either  from  the  doctrine, 
or  discipline  of  the  primitive  church  in  the  purest 
and  best  ages.  Trace  any  heresy,  or  any  schism 
you  please,  and  it  will  be  found  to  be  a  deviation 
from  the  church  in  one  or  the  other  of  these  re 
spects.  Christianity  can  admit  of  no  improvements, 
It  was  complete  the  moment  the  canon  of  scripture 
was  closed  ;  and  those  who  lived  in,  or  near  the 
Apostolic  age,  had  many  advantages  for  under- 
standing what  were  the  doctrines,  the  constitution, 
and  the  discipline  of  the  Christian  church,  which  we 
have  not.  The  Holy  Scriptures,  expounded  and 
elucidated  by  primitive  and  universal  belief  and 
practice,  will  effectually  secure  us  from  the  delu- 
sions, the  heresies  and  schisms  of  later  ages ;  and  if 
John  Wesley  had  governed  himself  by  this  rule,  in- 
stead of  giving  himself  up  to  Lord  King's  dictates, 
we  never  should  have  heard  of  the  spurious  Episco- 
pacy of  the  Methodists. 

I  shall  now,  Sir,  go  back  to  the  first  part  of  your 
sixth  letter,  the  consideration  of  which  I  post- 
poned, till  I  had  taken  a  view  of  what  you  have  said 
concerning  the  English  Reformers. 

The  first  thing  deserving  of  notice,  is  your  ad- 
ducing the  Wcttdenscs,  as  witnesses  to  Presbyterian 
112 


78  Letter  XVL 

parity.  You  say  that  they  maintained  that  "  there 
ought  to  be  no  diversity  of  rank  among  Ministers 
of  the  gospel — that  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  God,  and  primitive  practice,  were 
the  same  order ;  and  that  their  ecclesiastical  or- 
gan izatioli  was  Presbyterian  in  its  form." 

Now,  Sir,  I  maintain,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
Waldenses  were  Episcopal,  both  in  principle  and 
practice.  My  first  authority  is  Mosheim*  He  says, 
u  The  government  of  the  church  was  committed,  by 
the  Waldenses,  to  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons; 
for  they  acknowledged  that  those  three  ecclesias- 
tical orders  were  instituted  by  Christ  himself."* 
This  is  a  very  explicit,  and  very  strong  testimony 
against  you. 

The  next  testimony  is,  perhaps,  stronger  than 
Mosheim\.  It  is  that  of  Dr.  Allix,  who- minutely 
examined  the  history  of  this  body  of  Christians,  and 
pronounced  them  to  have  been  Episcopal.  I  have 
not  AHix's  Remarks  upon  the  ancient  Churches  of 
Piedmont;  I  must,  therefore,  be  indebted  to  Dr. 
Chandler  for  what  follows.  The  Doctor  observes, 
that  u  Allix  has  abundantly  proved,  that  the  Walden- 
ses always  preserved,  under  all  their  persecutions 
and  dispersions,  the  same  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, from  the  time  of  their  separation  from  the 
church  of  Rome,  in  the  eleventh  century  ;  and  that 
they  distinguished  their  clergy  into  three  orders — 

*  Eccles.  Hist,  vol.  iii.  p.  126 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth,    ¥9 

Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.  He  proves  this 
even  from  the  testimonies  of  those  enemies,  who 
endeavoured  to  fix  upon  them  the  reproach  of  al- 
lowing the  laity  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacra*- 
ments.  And  he  proves  it  more  fully  from  their 
own  writers."* 

My  third  testimony  against  you,  I  also  take  from 
Dr.  Chandler,  He  quotes  the  author  of  "  The  In- 
validity of  the  dissenting  Ministry"  who  says,  that 
"  in  1717,  a  contribution  was  made  throughout 
England  for  the  Waldenses,  and  that,  on  that  occa- 
sion, it  clearly  appeared  that  their  church  was  Epis- 
copal, like  the  church  of  England,  for  which  they 
always  pray  in  their  Liturgy." 

But  what  settles  this  matter  in  the  most  satis- 
factory manner,  is  what  follows.  The  Bohemian 
church,  in  its  preface  to  the  book  called,  Ratio  Dis- 
ciplince,  Ordinisque  £cclesiastici  in  Unitate  Fratrum 
Bohemorum,  says  :  "  And  whereas  the  said  Wal- 
denses  did  affirm,  that  they  had  lawful  Bishops,  and 
a  lawful  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  Apostles 
unto  this  day  ;  they  solemnly  created  three  of  our 
Ministers  Bishops,  and  conferred  upon  them  power 
to  ordain  Ministers."j  And,  in  conformity  with 
this,  Commenius,  the  historian  of  the  Bohemians, 
says  :  "  The  Protestants  of  Bohemia,  who  were  ap- 
prehensive that  ordinations,  in  which  Presbyters, 
and  not  a  Bishop,  should  create  another  Presbyter, 

."  Appeal  defended,  p.  91,  92.        f  Ibid.  p.  69. 


€0  Litter  XVI. 

would  not  be  lawful  ,•  and  were  in  doubt  how  they 
should  be  able  to  maintain  such  an  ordination,  either 
to  others  when  they  opposed,  or  to  their  own  peo- 
ple when  they  questioned  it, — sent  deputies  to  the 
remains  of  the  ancient  Waldenses,  upon  the  con- 
fines of  Moravia  and  Austriay  by  whose  Bishops 
these  deputies  were  consecrated  to  the  Episcopal 
office,  which  they  have  ever  since  transmitted  to 
their  successors."* 

From  these  accounts  it  appears  beyond  contra- 
diction, that  the  Waldenses  had  Diocesan,  and  not 
Presbyterian  Bishops,  as  you  assert— that  they  con- 
secrated three  Presbyters  to  the  Episcopal  office, 
who  were  sent  by  the  Bohemians  for  that  purpose—^ 
and  that  they  were  persuaded  that  they  had  an  un- 
interrupted succession  of  Bishops  from  the  Apostles. 

Of  what  consequence  is  it  now,  Sir,  to  inform  us, 
that  Eneas  Sylvius,  (afterwards  Pope  Pius  the  se- 
cond) and  the  Monk,  V/alsingham,  and  one  or  two 
more  of  the  Popish  enemies  of  the  Waldenses, 
charged  them  with  maintaining,  that  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  were  only  different  names  for  the  same  of- 
ficer. They  charged  them  also,  with  allowing  lay- 
men to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments.  They 
were  loaded  with  every  kind  of  reproach,  and  de- 
stroyed with  every  species  of  cruelty.  What  such 
men  said  of  them  has  no  weight,  when  set  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  respectable  authorities  which  I  have 
quoted. 

1  Com.  in  F»t.  Bohem.  as  quoted  by  Bishop  Ellys. 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.    &1 

Your  next  witness  in  favour  of  Presbyterian  pa- 
rity, is  John  Wickliffe,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the 
University  of  Oxford, 

It  is  not,  Sir,  an  easy  matter,  whatever  yoa 
may  think,  to  determine  what  Wkkliffeh  principles 
were.  Thus  far  I  believe  we  may  go  with  safety  : 
He  opposed  the  Pope's  supremacy,  transubstanti- 
ation,  the  worship  of  images,  the  invocation  of 
saints,-  and  some  minor  points.  But  scriptural  and 
rational  as  he  was  with  regard  to  these  subjects,  yet 
he  maintained  some  very  shocking  doctrines.  Col- 
lier has  given  us  a  view  of  them,  as  he  took  them 
from  Waldensis  and  Harpsfeld,  These  men,  to  be 
sure,  were  Wickliffe**  enemies,  and,  therefore,  we 
ought  not  to  place  implicit  confidence  in  them.  But 
if  we  receive  their  testimonies  with  respect  to  him 
in  some  particulars,  we  must  in  all,  unless  we  can 
find  impartial  historians,  who  contradict  these  men 
upon  the  offensive  tenets  with  which  they  charge 
Wickliffe.  I  will  exhibit  a  few  of  those  tenets  as  I 
find  them  in  Collier.* 

.  1st.  Wickliffe  maintains  a  stoical  fate,  and  makes 
all  things  proceed  from  absolute  necessity.  God, 
says  he,  forcibly  determines  all  creatures  to  their 
respective  actions.  Every  one  that  will  be  damned, 
is  a  devil  like  Judas,  Judas  was  chosen  by  our 
Saviour's  humanity.  This,  says  Harpsfeld^  makes 
men  friends  by  predestination,  and  is  a  more  hor- 

*  Eccks.  Hjst.  vol.  i.  p  584,  585,  536. 


82  Letter  XVI. 

rible  doctrine  than  that  of  the  Manichaeans,  who 
made  man  the  author  of  his  own  miscarriage,  and 
did  not  fetch  the  principal  of  evil  from  God  Al- 
mighty. 

2d.  Wickliffe  is  charged  with  denying  infant  bap- 
tism, and  with  giving  a  most  absurd  interpretation 
of  our  Saviour's  declaration,  that,  except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.  He  affirms,  that  by  these 
words  we  are  to  understand  only  the  water  which 
flowed  from  our  Saviour's  side,  in  conjunction  with 
the  baptism  of  the  spirit. 

3d.  He  disallows  imposition  of  hands  in  ordina- 
tion, and  all  other  ceremonies  of  an  outward  cal- 
ling. He  is  likewise  said  to  have  given  women  the 
privilege  of  the  priesthood  and  pulpit,  and  to  allow 
Priests  to  ordain  to  their  own  order. 

4th.  Wickliffe  is  charged  with  several  hetero- 
doxies relating  to  the  attributes  and  operations  of 
the  Almighty.  As  that,  God  always  acts  to  the 
extent  of  his  power,  and  can  do  nothing  more  nor 
otherwise,  than  what  he  does :  That  he  could  not 
alter  the  state  of  the  creation,  the  order  of  things, 
or  make  the  world  greater  or  less  than  it  is :  That 
the  First  Cause  is  limited  in  the  creation  of  human 
souls,  and  cannot  exceed  such  a  fixed  and  deter- 
mined number,  nor  annihilate  any  thing. 

5th.  Several  errors  relating  to  our  Saviour  are 
ascribed  to  him  ;  as  that  our  Saviour  had  three  na- 
tures in  a  separate  sense  j  whereas,  the  scriptures 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth,    83 

mform  us  that  he  consists  only  of  two,  the  human 
and  divine. 

Lastly  :  He  is  charged  with  denying  that  a  Bishop 
is  superior  to  a  Priest. 

These,  Sir,  are  but  a  few  of  WickHffe's  hetero- 
doxies, as  they  are  given  us  by  Collier.*  Now,  you 
may  either  receive  all,  or  reject  all.  Take  Wickliffe^ 
with  some  important  truths,  and  many  gross  errors, 
and  what  does  it  all  amount  to  ?  Precisely  to  this  t 
that  it  was  wasting  time  and  paper  to  have  noticed 
him.  But  as  you  fiave  brought  him  to  view,  it  was 
expedient  for  me  to  show,  that  Wickliffe*s  opinion, 
with  respect  to  Episcopacy,  is  of  no  more  conse- 
quence than  George  Fox's,  with  respect  to  a  minis- 
try in  any  degree,  or  under  any  form. 

You  go  on,  Sir,  in  the  same  irrelevant  and  useless 
manner.  You  inform  us,  that  the  renowned  mar- 
tyrs, jfohn  Huss,  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  who  laid 
down  their  lives  for  the  truth,  a  little  after  the  time 
of  Wickliffe,  embraced  the  greater  part,  if  not  all 
the  opinions  of  the  English  Reformer,  and  especi- 
ally his  doctrine  concerning  the  parity  of  Christian 
Ministers.  You  then  quote  Eneas  Sylvius  to  prove 
this,  but  do  not  let  us  know  in  what  part  of  his 
works  we  are  to  look  for  the  quotation  ;  and  you 
say,  that  this  account  is  confirmed  by  Thuanus% 
without  any  reference  to  page  or  volume. 

Were  I  to  pass  over  the  whole  of  this,  it  would  be 

*  See  aUo  Mcsheim,  vol.  iii.  p.  533, 


84  Letter  XVI. 

treating  the  matter  as  it.  deserves.  When  a  writer 
gives  us  no  particular  reference,  his  assertion  is  not 
entitled  to  any  notice.    But  waving  this,  I  observe — 

First,  That  Collier,  in  the  view  he  gives  us  of 
John  Huss>  and  Jerome's  sentiments,  does  not  say 
a  word  of  their  notions  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment. This,  indeed,  taken  alone,  does  not  amount 
to  much.  But  taken  in  connection  with  what  fol- 
lows, it  has  some  weight. 

In  the  second  place  ;  Mosheim  does  not  say  that 
John  Huss  maintained  the  principle  of  ministerial 
parky.  And  Mosheim's  translator,  Dr.  Maclean, 
asserts,  that  he  adopted  the  opinions  of  Wickliffe 
only  "  in  relation  to  the  papal  hierarchy,  the  despot- 
ism of  the  court  of  Rome,  and  the  corruption  of  the 
clergy ;  for  in  other  respects,  it  is  certain  that  he 
adhered  to  the  most  superstitious  doctrines  of  the 
church,  as  appears  by  two  sermons  he  had  prepared 
for  the  council. of  Constance"* 

It  cannot,  therefore,  be  deemed  of  any  conse- 
quence, that  Eneas  Syhras  (admitting  the  correct- 
ness of  your  quotation)  charges  John  Huss,  and 
Jerome  of  Prague,  with  maintaining  the  principle 
of  ministerial  parity.  .  . 

Although  I  do  not  think  it  of  the  least  mo- 
ment what  Sylvius  says  upon  this  point,  yet  I  wish 
to  have  access  to  his  works,  to  see  with  my  own 
eyes,  what  he  asserts  with  respect  to  these  men,  and 

*  Mosheim 's  Ecc'.es.  Hist.  vol.  iii  p.  410. 


-/ 


restimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.    Ho 

the  Waldenscs.  But  I  have  not  his  writings,  nor  do 
I  know  who  has.  They  are,  I  find,  in  the  library 
of  Philadelphia;  as  appears  from  some  notes  in 
my  possession,  made  upon  your  book  by  a  sensible 
and  candid  Clergyman  of  that  city.  "  As  Dr.  Mil- 
ler (says  he)  quotes  Thuanus,  Eneas  Sylvius,  and 
XValsingham,  to  prove,  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Wal- 
denses  were  mere  Presbyters,  I  this  day  [July  27th] 
looked  into  these  authors,  in  the  Library ;  but  in 
the  places  to  which  the  indexes  refer,  could  find  no- 
thing to  the  purpose.  In  Thitanus,  there  is  a  pas- 
sage, which  I  find  translated  in  Bishop  Newton; 
but  this  cannot  serve  Dr.  Miller's  turn.  Eneas  Syl- 
vius mentions  them  cursorily,  when  he  introduces 
his  account  of  John  IIuss.  But  the  intemperate 
manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  both  John  Huss  and 
the  Waldenses,  would  at  least  invalidate  what  is 
brought  from  him,  if  it  be  there,  which  I  doubt.  In 
Walsingham  I  could  find  nothing;  and,  indeed,  I 
should  lay  little  stress  on  any  thing  from  this  monk- 
ish writer." 

"  When  I  looked  on  Bishop  NexvtorCs,  and  at  Dr. 
MosheinCs  representations  of  the  Waldenses,  and  at 
the  respectable,  early  testimonies,  so  far  back  as  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries,  which  they  refer  to 
in  their  notes,  I  am  surprised  at  Dr.  Miller's  bringing 
against  them  the  testimony  of  Walsingham  and  Syl- 
vius, who  lived  in  the  fifteenth,  and  that  of  Thuanus, 
who  lived  in  the  sixteenth  century  ;  even  supposing 
their  testimony  to  be  as  stated;  of  which,  to  say  the 

Vol.  II.  I 

V 

A 


So  Letter  XVI. 

least,  /  have  great  doubts?1  Thus  writes  a  man, 
who  would  not  wilfully  misrepresent  any  thing. 

You  next  quote  a  passage  from  Tyndal,  who  was 
a  canon  of  Oxford,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  the  eighth. 
But  I  can  see  nothing  in  the  quotation  to  which  I 
cannot  very  readily  subscribe.  "  All  that  were  called 
Elders  (or  Priests,  if  they  so  will)  were  called  Bi- 
shops also,  though  they  have  _  now  divided  the 
names."  This  is  very  correct.  Presbyters  were 
undoubtedly  called  Bishops  at  first,  but  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century,  those  who  succeeded  to 
the  Apostolical  pre-eminence,  had  the  title  of  Bishop 
appropriated  to  them. 

This  Tyndal,  according  to  Collier^  was  very  he- 
terodox, upon  both  Popish  and  Protestant  principles. 
To  mention  but  one  particular :  He  maintained  that 
all  Christians  were  Priests,  and  denied  the  necessity 
of  any  distinct  order.  Such  a  man's  ideas  of  ec- 
clesiastical regimen,  can  be  of  no  consequence,  one 
way  or  the  other. 

Iximberfs  testimony  is  also  of  the  same  import 
with  that  of  TyndaFs.  He  certainly  did  not  mean 
to  exclude  the  Apostles  from  their  rank  in  the 
church ;  and  then  there  were  three  orders,  Apostles, 
Presbyters  or  Bishops,  and  Deacons.  The  commu- 
nity of  names  is  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose,  as  has 
been  proved,  almost  to  a  demonstration. 

I  have  now,  Sir,  to  examine  what  you  are  pleased 
to  call  the  Concessions  of  Episcopalians, 

*  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  72. 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.    Wf 

Before  you  come  to  the  point,  you  prudently 
make  the  following  observations  :  "  When  I  exhi- 
bit Episcopal  divines  as  making  concessions  in  fa- 
vour of  our  doctrine,  none,  certainly,  will  understand 
me  as  meaning  to  assert,  that  they  were  Presbyte- 
rians in  principle.  So  far  from  this,  the  chief  value 
of  their  concessions  consists  in  being  made  by  de- 
cided friends  of  Episcopacy.  Neither  will  you  un- 
derstand me  to  assert,  that  none  of  these  writers  say 
anything,  in  other  parts  of  their  works,  inconsistent 
with  these  concessions.  It  is  enough  for  me  to 
know  what  language  they  employed,  xvhen  they  un- 
dertook professedly  to  state  tnei  sub- 
ject before  us"* 

It  appears  from  this  quotation,  that  you  do  not 
bring  to  view  the  writers  named  in  your  Letter,  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  that  they  were  Presbyterians 
in  principle.  A  Presbyterian  is  one  who  believes 
that  the  Apostles,  acting  by  divine  direction,  left 
the  Ministers  of  the  church  in  a  state  of  perfect 
equality.  You  acquit  the  authors  quoted  from 
maintaining  this  principle.  Well  then,  what  did 
they  maintain?  That  the  Apostles,  directed  bv  the 
Holy  Ghost,  left  the  church  under  no  particular 
form  of  government  ?  That  opinion  is  absurd  ;  for 
home  form  even'  society  must  have  ;  and  the  scrip- 
tures declare  the  church  to  be  a  society  ;  and  it  is  e\  i- 
dent  to  common  sense  that  it  is.     Now,  if  th 


\ 


SB  Letter  XVI. 

authors  did  not  believe  the  church  to  have  been 
committed  to  Ministers,  acting  upon  a  footing  of 
equality,  then  they  must  have  believed  that  the 
Apostles  established  the  ministry  upon  a  principle  ot 
imparity /  and  this  is  true  and  proper  Episcopacy. 

2.  If  the  Episcopalians  whom  you  quote  believed 
that  imparity  among  the  Ministers  of  the  Gospel 
was  established  by  the  Apostles,  then  they  must 
have  believed  that  the  Apostles  acted  either  under 
the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  that  they  acted 
from  their  own  private  judgment.  If  they,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  established  impa* 
rity,  then  imparity  is  a  divine  institution.  If  so* 
then  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which 
imparity  was  established,  is  necessary  to  abolish  it ; 
for  it  is  an  acknowledged  principle,  in  both  human 
and  divine  governments,  that  no  less  power  than 
that  which  institutes,  can  abrogate.  Consequently, 
if  those  Episcopalians,  who  assert  that  Episcopacy 
was  established  by  the  Apostles,  acting  under  the 
direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  do  at  the  same  time 
assert,  that  Episcopacy  may  be  abrogated  by  human 
power,  they  involve  themselves  in  palpable  incon- 
sistency ;  as  then  they  assert,  that  an  inferior  power 
may  abrogate  what  has  been  established  by  a  supe- 
rior j  that  is,  that  man  may  annul  what  God  has  in- 
stituted. This  not  only  involves  an  absurdity  in 
principle,  but  also  leaves  Christ's  church  complete- 
ly at  the  disposal  of  whim,  ignorance,  interest,  and 
passion.     Upon  this  ground  there  is  no  such  thing 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.    89 

33  a  principle  of  unity  ;  no  such  thing  as  a  ministry 
deriving  its  authority  from  Christ ;  no  such  thing 
as  Ambassadors  of  Christ,  as  Stewards  of  the 
household  of  God.  Those  are  Ministers  who  make 
themselves  such,  or  are  made  such  by  the  people. 
No  criterion  of  genuine  priesthood  remains,  nor  was 
ever  established.  The  body  of  Christ  is  as  multi- 
form as  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter,  and  every 
thing  is  a  church,  which  man  pleases  to  call  so. 

But  if  any  Episcopalian,  who  maintains  that 
Episcopacy  was  established  by  the  Apostles,  should, 
at  the  same  time,  assert,  that  the  Apostles,  in  estab- 
lishing it,  acted  from  their  best  judgment,  and  not 
by  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  thev  have 
as  great  difficulties  to  encounter,  as  the  above  de- 
scription of  Episcopalians. 

1.  They  contradict  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Christ  instituted  a  ministry,  and  promised  to  be 
with  that  ministry  to  the  end  of  the  world.  This 
is  beyond  a  doubt. 

2.  Christ  promised  the  Apostles,  that  he  would 
send  the  Holy  Ghost  to  lead  them  into  all  the  truth, 
with  which  it  was  necessarv  for  his  church  to  be 
acquainted.  And,  accordingly,  the  Holy  Ghost  de- 
scended upon  the  Apostles.  This  also  i3  beyond 
contradiction. 

3.  The  Aposdes  ordained  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons :  and  the  Apostle  Paul  sent  Timothv  to  Ephe- 

12 


00  Letter  XVI. 

sw,  and  Titus  to  Crete,  to  ordain  those  ministers. 
And  it  appears,  that  this  was  sometimes,  if  not  al- 
ways, done  by  the  special  direction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  These  things  cannot  be  denied.  Then  it 
follows, 

4.  That  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church, 
•as  to  its  ministry,  was  fixed  and  rendered  perma- 
nent by  Christ,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Apostles  were 
not  left  to  their  own  judgment.     But, 

5.  If  we  were  even  to  grant  that  the  Apostles 
were  left  to  their  own  judgment,  yet,  if  Episcopacy 
was  established  by  them,  as  the  present  case  sup- 
poses, then  the  power  of  ordination  was  attached  to 
the  order  of  Bishops,  as  those  Episcopalians  allow, 
and  as,  indeed,  the  order  of  things  necessarily  im- 
plies j  for  in  every  government,  commissions  must 
How  from  the  fountain  head :  then  it  will  follow, 
that  Presbyters,  not  having  been  invested  with 
that  power  by  the  Apostles,  cannot  possibly  exer- 
cise it  without  usurpation.  So  that,  whether  the 
Apostles  acted  under  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  or  from  their  own  judgment,  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  having  been  settled  by  them,  in 
the  article  of  ordination,  no  subsequent  alteration 
by  others,  in  this  particular,  can  be  deemed  valid. 

6.  To  this  consideration  of  invalidity  must  be 
added  all  the  consequences  resulting  from  the  for- 
mer case.  Those  are,  leaving  the  church  entirely 
at  the  disposal  of  whim,  ignorance,  interest,  and 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.    9? 

passion ;  and,  consequently,  implanting  in  its  very 
constitution  the  seeds  of  variety,  confusion,  and  de- 
formity. 

From  these  considerations,  it  appears  to  me,  that 
no  one  who  asserts  that  Episcopacy  is  an  Apostolic 
institution,  but,  at  the  same  time,  admits,  that  it  is 
not  perpetually  binding*  (at  least  where  it  may  be 
had)  can  be  considered  as  holding  an  opinion  con- 
sistent with  scripture,  with  the  nature  of  Episco- 
pacy, and  with  those  principles  that  are  necessarily 
involved  in  the  very  idea  of  government. 

I  have  made  these  observations  to  show,  that  if 
even  the  authors  whom  you  quote,  should,  upon  ex- 
amination, turn  out  as  you  would  have  them,  yet, 
acknowledging  Episcopacy  to  be  an  Apostolical  in- 
stitution, their  deductions  from  that  fact  do  not  at 
all  affect  the  point  in  question.  Their  opinion  upon 
the  consequences  of  the  fact  is  worth  no  more  than 
their  reasoning  upon  which  the  opinion  is  found- 
ed. Let  that  be  correct,  or  not,  they  acknowledge 
that  Episcopacy  is  an  Apostolical  institution ;  and 
that  is  all  that  I  am  concerned  about. 

The  first  writer  whom  you  mention  in  favour  of 
your  cause,  is  Mr.  Dodwell.  That  you  should 
name  him,  is  a  very  extraordinary  instance  of  impru- 
dence. Perhaps  no  man  ever  maintained  the  divine 
institution  of  Episcopacy  more  zealously  than  he 
did.  The  whole  tenor  of  his  writings  evince  this. 
He  does  not  so  much  as  hint,  that  the  first  Bishop? 


&2  Letter  XVI. 

were  consecrated  by  Presbyters,  as  you  assert.  He 
repeatedly  declares,  that  the  first  Bishops  were  or- 
dained by  the  Apostles  ;  that  every  Bishop  in  his 
diocese,  was  what  the  High  Priest  was  in  the  Jew- 
ish church;  and  that  as  the  High  Priest  was  a  type 
of  Christ,  so  the  Bishop,  in  the  Christian  church,  is 
his  representative,  or  vicegerent.  And  from  this 
principle,  he  argues  against  Presbyterian  ordination. 
He  held,  indeed,  the  singular  opinion,  that  St,  James 
was  divinely  appointed  to  a  supremacy  over  the 
whole  Christian  church,  which  supremacy  he  sup- 
posed continued  till  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem* 
That  then  it  was  transferred  to  the  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus:  but  that  the  Apostles,  before  their  death,  esta- 
blished Bishops  generally  over  the  churches;  and 
that  a  succession  from  this  source  had  continued 
through  all  ages,  to  the  time  when  he  wrote ;  and 
that  it  would  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

Mr.  Dodzvell  also  supposed,  that  as  this  general 
establishment  of  Episcopacy  by  the  Apostles,  acting 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  did  not  take 
place  till  all  the  Epistles  were  written,  we  are  not 
to  look  for  a  particular  and  explicit  exposition  of 
this  Ecclesiastical  regimen  in  the  New  Testament ; 
but  that,  as  the  whole  church  of  Christ,  in  every 
age  subsequent  to  the  Apostolic,  bears  testimony  to 
the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  the  fact  is 
thereby  as  fully  ascertained  as  the  canon  of  scrip- 
ture, the  institution  of  the  Lord's  day,  and  the  prac- 


Testimony  of  ether  Witnesses  of  the  Truth,    93 

•ice  of  baptizing  infants  ;  and  this,  he  maintains,  is 
at  complete  proof,  as  can  be  produced  for  any  mat- 
rer  of  fact  whatever. 

How  you  could  think  of  naming  Dodwell,  as  in 
any  degree,  or  in  any  point  of  view,  favourable  to 
your  side  of  the  question,  is  more  than  I  can  com- 
prehend. He  has  always  been  considered  as  a 
strong  Episcopalian,  upon  the  ground  of  divine 
right.  He  does  not  stop  here ;  but  deduces  from 
this  principle,  what  appeared  to  him  to  be  its  ge- 
nuine consequences,  viz.  the  invalidity  of  Presby- 
terian ordination ;  the  inefficacy,  but  by  extraordi- 
nary grace,  of  all  the  administrations  of  Presby- 
ters thus  ordained  ;  and  the  unjustifiable  schism  of 
all  who  set  up  churches  upon  a  principle  of  parity*. 
If  such  a  man  can  be  of  any  service  to  you,  Sir, 
you  are  very  welcome  to  him. 

The  next  person  whom  you  name,  not  indeed  as 
maintaining  a  parity  of  ministers,  but  as  holding 
the  opinion,  that  Presbyters  were  not  ordained  till 
after  the  canon  of  scripture  was  closed,  is  Dr. 
Hammond,  Pray,  Sir,  why.  do  you  quote  writers 
who  can  render  you  no  manner  of  service  ?  You 
know  very  well,  that  Dr.  Hammond  maintained  the 
divine  right  of  Episcopacy.  If  he  had  a  particular 
notion  about  the  time  when  Presbvters  were  or- 
dained, what  is  that  to  the  general  principle  ?  It  is 
very  probable,  Sir,  that  you  and  I  have  not  precisely 
the  same  notions  about  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity. 
and  the  atonement;  and  if  we  were  to  give  our  sen 


94  "         Letter XVI. 

timents  to  the  public  upon  these  points,  would  it  not 
be  very  preposterous  in  a  Socinian,  to  quote  us  as  not 
agreeing  precisely  in  our  ideas  ?  I  have  no  xloubt, 
Sir,  that  you  and  some  of  your  brethren  differ  con- 
siderably in  your  views  of  the  divine  decrees,  free- 
dom of  will,  election,  and  reprobation  ;  yet  were 
I  disputing  with  you  upon  these  points,  I  should 
think  it  very  weak,  to  adduce  the  particulars  in 
which  you  differ,  as  proofs  against  the  truth  of 
those  doctrines.  A  perfect  agreement  in  men's 
conceptions  upon  any  doctrine,  is  hardly  to  be  ex- 
pected. When  they  admit  the  truth  of  the  doctrine, 
that  is  all  that  a  reasonable  man  should  look  for. 
No  men  more  firmly  believed  the  divine  right  of 
Episcopacy  than  Dodwell  and  Hammond ;  and  no 
men  more  strenuously  maintained  it. 

The  next  thing  worthy  of  notice  is,  your  quoting 
four  authorities  among  the  Papists,  in  proof  that 
Bishops  and  Priests  were  the  same  in  the  primitive 
church. 

Your  first  authority  is  the  canons  of  Elfrrc,  in  the 
year  990.  In  those  canons,  you  say,  "  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  are  declared  to  be  of  the  same  order" 

Pray,  Sir,  why  did  you  not  give  us  the  words  of 
the  canon  ?  I  ask  you  seriously,  do  you  think  your- 
self entitled  to  an  answer,  when  you  do  not  give  us 
the  words  of  an  author  t  If  this  had  happened  but 
in  a  few  instances,  a  patient  reader  might  bear  with 
it ;  but  when  it  occurs  so  very  often*  it  is  almost  in 
tolerable. 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.    §5 

The  canon  which  you  must  have  had  in  view-,  is 
the  seventeenth.  "  It  describes,"  says  Collier,  "  the 
character  of  a  Mass,  or  Parish-Priest,  and  lays  it 
down  for  a  rule,  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
a  Priest  and  a  Bishop,  excepting  that  the  Bishop  has 
the  privilege  of  ordination,  of  visiting  the  diocese, 
and  managing  the  grand  affairs  of  religion;  and 
though  both  act  within  the  same  order,  yet  the  nobler 
part  of  it  belongs  to  the  Bishop."* 

Can  it  be  possible,  Sir,  that  you  see  any  thing  in 
this  canon  favourable  to  your  cause  ?  Is  it  of  any 
consequence,  whether  we  say  Bishops  and  Presby- 
ters are  of  a  different  order,  or  of  a  different  de- 
gree ?  I  prefer  the  former  ;  but  I  do  not  find  fault 
with  any  Episcopalian  who  uses  the  latter,  if  he  ac- 
knowledges, as  is  done  in  the  canon,  that  ordina- 
tion, and  a  supremacy  of  jurisdiction,  are  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Bishop.  These  powers,  in  the  opi- 
nion of  the  generality  of  Episcopalians,  create  a 
different  order ;  and  to  me  it  appears  the  more  cor- 
rect way  of  speaking.  Bishop  Burnet  has  already 
been  quoted  as  observing,  that  the  word  degree 
came  into  vogue  in  the  Romish  church,  after  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  broached;  but, 
at  the  same  time,  it  was  maintained  by  all  those  who 
thus  spoke,  that  the  Bishop  has  powers,  by  divine 
institution,  which  the  Priest  has  not.  And  this 
being  acknowledged,  it  is  of  no  consequence  whe- 

•  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  207. 


96  Letter  XVI. 

ther  we  use  the  word  order ,  or  degree*  This  will 
serve  as  an  answer  to  two  or  three  other  quotations 
of  the  same  kind. 

Your  second  authority,  before  the  Reformation, 
is  Anselme,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died 
about  the  year  1109.  You  say,  that  he  explicitly 
tells  us,  that,  "  by  the  Apostolic  institution,  all  Pres- 
byters are  Bishops."  You  then  refer  to  his  com- 
mentary on  the  Epistles  to  Titus  and  the  Philip- 
pians. 

Upon  reading  this  quotation,  it  struck  me  that 
there  must  be  an  error  somewhere  or  other.  I  could 
not  think  that  Anselme,  who,  according  to  Du  Pin, 
was  a  very  strong  Catholic,  would  use  the  language 
of  your  quotation.  To  satisfy  myself,  I  first  con- 
sulted Collier,  who  gives  a  list  of  Anselme's  works, 
but  he  does  not  mention  the  commentary  you  have 
quoted.  I  next  consulted  Du  Pin,  who  is  still 
more  minute  in  his  list  of  the  Archbishop's  writ- 
ings ;  but  I  found  no  such  commentary  in  the  list. 
I  then  had  recourse  to  Cave's  Historia  Liter  aria, 
in  Which  I  find  the  commentary  marked  as  a  spu- 
rious work,*  This,  Sir,  is  an  unfortunate  elucida- 
tion for  the  extract  you  have  given  us. 

Your  next  quotation  is  from  the  Canon  Law, 
yustelle's  Collection  of  Canons  is  not  within  my 
reach.  But  even  in  the  quotation  which  you  have 
given  us,  I  do  not  see  any  thing  that  is  much  amiss. 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  162.     Saculum  Hildebrandinum. 


Testimony  of  other  Witnesses  of  the  Truth.    97 

It  seems  to  be  nothing  more  nor  less  than  Jerome's 
opinion, — >that  to  prevent  schism,  Bishops  were  set 
over  the  Presbyters  by  general  consent.  This  may 
be  true  or  not,  according  to  the  sense  in  which  it 
is  taken.  I  suspect,  Sir,  that  all  is  not  quite  right 
with  respect  to  this  quotation ;  but  I  cannot,  at  pre- 
sent, throw  the  same  light  upon  it  that  I  have  upon 
the  one  immediately  preceding. 

Your  last  Catholic  testimony  is  from  the  Consul- 
tations of  Cassander.  This  testimony  does  not  dif- 
fer materially  from  the  last ;  and  as  I  have  not  ac- 
cess to  CassandeSs  writings,  I  must  content  myself 
with  the  same  answer  that  I  have  given  to  your 
extract  from  the  Canon  Law. 

I  have  now,  Sir,  shown  that  the  canons  of  Elfric 
are  pointedly,  and  decidedly  in  our  favour  ;  and  that 
the  testimony  which  you  ascribe  to  Anselme,  is  not 
taken  from  his  genuine  writings.  And  as  to  the  two 
last  quotations,  although  I  cannot  at  present  throw 
that  light  upon  them  that  I  wish  ;  yet,  I  have  not  a 
doubt,  that  if  I  had  the  books  to  which  you  refer, 
I  should  be  able  to  show,  that  you  have  failed  as 
much  in  these,  as  in  the  others. 

I  shall  close  this  letter  with  one  observation. — It 
is  an  easy  matter,  by  means  of  scraps,  and  sentences 
expressed  in  vague  terms,  to  make  an  author  speak 
almost  any  thing  that  we  wish.  In  this  way,  I  could 
make  you  appear  a  very  good  Episcopalian,  and  a 
person  who  had  not  access  to  your  book  would  be  at 
a  loss  to  prove,  that  the  quotations  were  partial  and 

Vol.  II.  K 


98  Letter  XVI. 

imperfect.  I  have,  in  the  course  of  this  discussion, 
shown  this  kind  of  management  to  be  so  common 
in  your  Letters,  that  I  suspect,  even  your  friends 
will  shrug  up  their  shoulders,  and  make  some  very 
unfavourable  exclamations.  They,  no  doubt,  will 
acquit  you,  as  I  certainly  do,  of  all  designed  misre- 
presentation ;  but  still  they  will,  if  I  mistake  not, 
be  pretty  unanimously  of  opinion,  that  you  ought  to 
have  been  more  particular  in  your  investigation,  and 
have  trusted  less  to  others. 


(    09    ) 


LETTER  XVIL 


Rev.  Sir, 

AFTER  giving  your  readers  four  quotations  from 
authors  before  the  Reformation,  in  favour,  as  you 
suppose,  of  Presbytery,  you  proceed  to  observe, 
"  that  all  the  first  Reformers  of  the  church  of  Eng~ 
landireely  acknowledged  Bishops  and  Presbyters  to 
have  been  the  same  in  the  Apostolic  age  ;  and  only 
defended  diocesan  Episcopacy  as  a  wise  human  ap- 
pointment." 

This  I  have  proved  to  be  most  grossly  erroneous. 
I  have  proved  it  from  the  preface  to  the  ordinal, 
and  from  the  ordination  offices.  I  have  proved  that 
Cranmer  placed  Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of 
Apostolic  institution,  and  that  all  the  Reformers 
were  of  the  same  mind.  So  much  evidence  has  been 
produced  upon  this  point,  that  I  cannot  conceive  it 
possible  for  any  human  mind  to  resist  its  force. 

I  have  also  proved  that  you  committed  an  error, 
when  you  asserted  that  Bancroft  was  the  first  who 
placed  Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of  divine  right* 
Whitgift  had  done  so  seventeen  years  before  Ban- 
croft.*    The  former  published  his  answer  to  the 

*  Collier,  vol.  ii.  p.  537. 


100  Letter  XVIL 

Admonition  to  the  Parliament,  in  the  year  1571  j  the 
latter,  by  your  own  account,  preached  his  famous 
sermon  in  the  year  1588. 

You  next,  Sir,  give  us  a  long  quotation  from  Dr. 
Raignolds,  from  which  it  appears,  that  he  did  not 
conceive  Episcopacy  was  founded  upon  divine  right. 
To  quote  Raignolds  in  favour  of  the  human  institu- 
tion of  Episcopacy,  is  much  like  quoting  a  Presby- 
terian in  favour  of  it.  You  must  certainly  know, 
that  this  learned  professor  was  a  leading  man  among 
the  Puritans,  and  that  he  was  the  prolocutor  of  their 
commissioners,  at  the  famous  Hampton  court  con- 
ference. What  a  number  of  cavils  he  advanced 
on  that  occasion,  may  be  seen  in  Collier's  ecclesias- 
tical history.  To  quote  such  a  man  can  hardly  be 
considered  as  candid.  It  is  true,  he  did  not  sepa- 
rate from  the  church  ;  and,  therefore,  I  suppose, 
you  rank  him  among  Episcopalians.  But  a  man 
cannot,  with  any  propriety,  be  viewed  in  that  light, 
although  he  may  be  officiating  in  an  Episcopal 
church,  when  he  renounces  the  very  principle  which 
discriminates  Episcopacy  from  Presbytery.  It  is 
not  a  form  of  prayer  that  makes  the  distinction; 
for  there  are  several  Presbyterian  churches  that 
use  forms.  It  is  not  any  doctrines  peculiar  to  either 
that  discriminate  ;  the  doctrines,  except  the  article 
of  election,  with  its  counterpart  reprobation,  are  the 
same,  or  nearly  so.  It  is  not  that  the  one  uses 
rites  and  ceremonies,  and  that  the  other  does  not  use 
them  ;  for  rites  and  ceremonies,  in  a  greater  or  less 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians,  101 

degree,  belong  to  all  churches  that  have  any  preten- 
sions to  decency.  No;  these  are  not  the  points  of 
difference  between  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians. 
The  grand  distinction  between  them  is,  as  I  have 
already  observed,  that  one  holds  Episcopacy  to  have 
been  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  guided  by  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  the  other,  that  a  parity  of  ministers  rests 
upon  the  same  foundation.  Raignolds,  therefore, 
had  no  just  claim  to  the  character  of  an  Episcopa- 
lian, and,  consequently,  his  testimony  is  that  of  an 
enemy,  and  not  of  a  friend. 

Your  next  quotation  is  from  Archbishop 
Whitgift,  who,  you  say,  "  referring  to  the  great 
attention  which  Bancroft's  sermon  had  excited^ 
observed  that  it  had  done  good ;  but  added,  that 
with  respect  to  the  offensive  doctrine  which  it 
contained,  he  rather  wished,  tlian  believed  it  to  be 
true." 

I  shall  give  you  the  answer  to  this,  which  Dr. 
Chandler  gave  forty  years  ago  to  Dr.  Chauncu% 
when  he  urged  it.  "  This  is  incredible  in  itself, 
and  seems  to  rest  altogether  on  NeaVs  authority. 
This  historian,  in  his  account  of  Bancroft's  sermon, 
refers  to  no  other  evidence  than  Strype^s  life  of 
Whit  gift;  and  in  that  book  the  anecdote  is  not  to 
be  met  with.  But  near  this  time,  viz.  in  1589,  the 
Archbishop,  in  answer  to  the  calumnies  of  Martin 
Mar,  prelate,  says,  '  that  he  zvas  persuaded,  that 
there  ought  to  be  by  the  xvord  of  God,  a  superi- 
ority among  the  ministers  of  the  church;  and  thai 
K2 


102  Letter  XVII. 

it  xvas  sufficiently  proved  in  his  book  against  CarU 
kvright.  And  that  he  was  at  all  times  readif  to  jus* 
tify  it  by  the  holy  scriptures,  and  by  the  testimony 
of  all  antiquity?*  This  clearly  shows,  that  the 
Archbishop  did  not  wish,  but  believed  Bancroft's 
doctrine  to  be  true."f 

This  testimony,  with  that  quoted  in  the  last  letter, 
evinces,  beyond  contradiction,  that  Whitgift  main- 
tained Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  divine  right. 
When,  therefore,  he  says,  (as  you  quote  him)  u  It 
is  well  known  that  the  manner  and  form  of  govern- 
ment used  in  the  ApostleTs  time,  and  expressed  in 
the  scriptures,  neither  is  now,  nor  can,  nor  ought 
to  be  observed,  either  touching  the  persons  or  func- 
tions ;"  he  must  certainly  mean  persons  and  func- 
tions,  which  are  not  essential  to  Episcopal  regimen, 
otherwise  he  flatly  contradicts  himself.  That  a  man 
should  write  a  book  to  prove  Episcopacy  to  be 
founded  on  the  word  of  God,  and  after,  in  his  own 
opinion,  he  has  fully  gained  his  point  -r  that  he 
should  then  very  gravely  tell  his  readers,  notwith- 
standing Episcopacy  is  founded  on  divine  autho- 
rity, yet  men  may  abolish  it  whenever  they  think 
proper,  and  substitute  in  its  place  whatever  whim 
may  suggest;  that  he  should  do  this,  carries  im- 
probability upon  the  very  face  of  it.  But  con- 
clusive as  this  presumption  would  be  with  every 
candid  man,  yet  I  am  not  obliged  to  depend  afto- 

*  Life  of  Whitgifr,  p.  304.        t  Appeal  defended,  p.  37 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians.  1€>3 

gether  upon  it.  I  have  Whitgift's  own  words,  from 
which  it  will  appear  that  I  have  represented  him 
with  perfect  correctness. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Puritans  maintained, 
that  nothing  is  to  he  admitted  into  the  worship  or 
discipline  of  the  church,  that  is  not  prescribed  in 
the  word  of  God.  This  Whitgift  denies ;  and 
strenuously  contends,  that  things  of  a  mutable  na- 
ture, grounded  altogether  upon  expediency,  are 
and  must  be  admitted  into  the  church  of  Christ. 
Thus,  in  his  defence  of  the  Answer  to  the  Admoni- 
tion written  by  Cartwright>  he  has  the  following 
words — u  Visible  and  external  government,  is  that 
which  is  executed  by  man,  and  consisteth  of  exter- 
nal discipline,  and  visible  ceremonies  practised  in 
that  church  that  containeth  in  it  both  good  and  evil. 
For  so  much  as  you  make  mention  of  excommuni- 
cation, I  take  it  that  you  mean  the  external  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  and  that  kind  of  government. 
And  yet  I  must  ask  you, — -whether  you  mean  that 
this  government  [excommunication  and  other  cen- 
sures] is  necessaiy  at  all  times,  or  then  when  the 
church  is  collected  together,  and  in  such  place 
where  it  may  have  government.  For  you  know 
that  the  church  is  sometimes  by  persecution  so  dis- 
persed, that  it  appeareth  not,  as  we  read  Apoca- 
lypse 6,  so  that  it  cannot  have  any  external  govern- 
ment, or  exercise  of  any  discipline.  But  to  be 
short,  I  confess  that  in  a  church  collected  together 
in  one  place,  and  at  liberty,  government  [discipline, 


104  Letter  XVII. 

excommunication  and  other  censures]  is  necessary 
in  the  second  kind  of  necessity,  [that  is,  without 
which  a  thing  cannot  so  well  and  conveniently  bej  ; 
but  that  any  one  kind  of  government  [discipline, 
&c]  is  so  necessary,  that  without  it  the  church  can- 
not be  saved,  or  that  it  may  not  be  altered  into 
some  other  kind  thought  to  be  more  expedient,  I 
utterly  deny."* 

Again  :  Whitgift,  speaking  of  Cartwright's  ridi- 
culous assertion,  that  u  the  government  of  the  com- 
monwealth must  be  framed  according  to  the  go- 
vernment of  the  church,  even  as  the  hangings  to 
the  house,"  very  justly  observes—"  this  is  a  dan- 
gerous error,  and  springeth  of  this,  that  he  doth 
not  distinguish  betwixt  the  essential  points  of  the 
government  of  the  church,  and  the  accidental  points 
of  the  same  ;  for  the  essential  points  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal government,  may  well  agree  with  any  lawful 
state  of  commonwealth,  and  civil  kind  of  govern- 
ment ;  as  the  gospel  may  be  truly  preached  in  them 
all,  the  sacraments  rightly  ministered,  discipline 
duly  executed,  and  such  like.  But  the  accidental 
points  of  government  (as  the  manner  of  electing 
ministers,  the  kind  of  discipline,  accidental  ceremo- 
nies, and  other  such  like  rites  and  circumstances) 
may  be  varied  according  to  time,  place,  and  cir- 
cumstances.'^ There  is  a  great  deal  more  to  the 
same  purpose  in  other  parts  of  his  book. 

*  Defence  of  the  Answer  to  the  Admonition,  p.  80,  87 
•f  Table  of  dangerous  doctrines. 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians.  105 

It  is  evident  from  these  quotations,  that  when 
Whit  gift  pleads  for  the  mutability  of  government, 
he  means  of  discipline,  of  church  censures,  of  rites 
and  ceremonies,  and  not  of  Episcopacy.  Yet  no 
doubt  he  maintained,  even  with  respect  to  Episco- 
pacy, what  every  Episcopal  writer  that  I  have  ever 
met  with  maintains,  that  this  government  is  not  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  the  very  salvation  of  the  church, 
but  that  it  is  so  necessary,  that  the  church  cannot 
be  in  a  sound  and  perfect  state  without  it. 

I  think,  Sir,  that  I  have  now  given  sufficient 
proof,  that  Whitgift  maintained  the  divine  right  of 
Episcopacy,  in  this  sense — that  it  was  instituted  by 
the  Apostles  acting  under  the  direction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  therefore  not  to  be  laid  aside  upon  a 
pretence,  that  it  would  be  more  convenient  to  adopt 
some  other  regimen. 

The  next  writer  whom  I  conceive  you  have  mis- 
represented, is  Bishop  Bilaon.  You  quote  a  pas- 
sage from  his  work  against  Seminaries,  in  which, 
if  the  passage  be  correctly  quoted,  he  says,  "  that 
Bishops  came  in  after  the  Apostles'  time." 

I  have  not  the  work  to  which  you  refer ;  but  I 
have  his  book  entitled, "  The  perpetual  Government 
of  Christ's  Church."  In  the  preface  to  that  work, 
he  has  the  following  words  :  u  Who  succeeded  the 
Apostles,  whether  ail  Presbyters  equally,  or  certain 
chief  and  chosen  men,  one  in  every  church  and 
city,  trusted  with  the  government  both  of  the  peo- 
ple and   Presbyters,   I  have  largely  debated,  and 


106  Letter  XVII. 

made  it  plain,  as  well  by  the  scriptures  as  by  other 
ancient  writers  past  all  exception,  that  from  the 
Apostles  to  the  first  Nicene  council,  and  so  all  along 
to  this  our  age,  there  have  always  been  selected 
some  of  greater  gifts  than  the  residue,  to  succeed 
in  the  Aposdes'  places  ;  to  whom  it  belonged,  both 
to  moderate  the  Presbyters  of  each  church,  and  to 
take  the  special  charge  of  imposition  of  hands  ;  and 
this  their  singularity  in  succeeding,  and  superiority 
in  ordaining,  have  been  observed  from  the  Apos- 
tles' times,  as  the  peculiar  and  substantial  marks  of 
Episcopal  power  and  calling." 

"  I  know,"  continues  he, "  some  late  writers  vehe- 
mently spurn  at  this,  and  hardly  endure  any  differ- 
ence betwixt  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  unless  it  be  by 
custom  and  consent  of  men,  but  in  no  case  by  any  or- 
der or  institution  of  the  Apostles ;  whose  opinions, 
together  with  the  authorities  on  which  they  build, 
I  have,  according  to  my  skill,  examined,  and  find 
them  no  way  able  to  rebate  the  full  and  sound  evi- 
dence that  is  for  the  contrary.  For  what  more  preg- 
nant probation  can  be  required,  than  that  the  same 
power  and  precepts  which  Paul  gave  to  Timothy, 
when  he  had  the  charge  of  Ephesus,  remained  in 
all  the  churches  throughout  the  world,  to  certain 
special  and  tried  persons  authorised  by  the  Apostles 
themselves,  and  from  them  derived  to  their  after- 
comers  by  a  general  and  perpetual  succession  in 
every  church  and  city,  without  conference  to  enlarge 
it,  or  council  to  decree  it  j  the  continuing  whereof 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians.  107 

for  three  descents,  the  Apostles  saw  with  their  eyes, 
confirmed  with  their  hands,  and  St.  John,  amongst 
others  witnessed,  with  his  pen,  as  an  order  of  ruling 
the  church,  approved  by  the  express  voice  of  the 
Son  of  God.  When  the  original  proceeded  from 
the  Apostles'  mouth,  and  was  observed  in  all  the  fa- 
mous places  and  churches  of  Christendom  where 
the  Apostles  taught,  and  whilst  they  lived ;  can  any 
man  doubt  whether  that  course  of  governing  the 
church  were  Apostolic  ?  For  my  part,  I  confess  I 
am  neither  so  wise  as  to  overreach  it  with  policy, 
nor  so  wayward  as  to  withstand  it  with  obstinacy." 

It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  these,  and  numerous 
other  passages  with  that  which  you  quote.  The 
great  object  of  Bilsorfs  work  is  to  prove  Episcopacy 
an  Apostolical  institution  ;  and  I  cannot  but  think 
that  whoever  will  read  him  with  impartiality,  will 
be  satisfied  that  he  has  gained  his  point. — I  there- 
fore conclude,  that  the  passage  which  you  quote, 
is  not  in  the  original ;  or  that  it  is  so  garbled  as  not 
to  express  the  author's  sense  ! 

Bishop  Jewel  is  another  Episcopalian,  whom 
you  quote  for  some  purpose  or  other;  I  do  not 
very  well  know  for  what.  Do  you  mean  to  infer 
from  the  quotation,  that  the  Bishop  thought  Epis- 
copacy was  a  human  institution?  If  that  be  your 
meaning,  you  do  him  great  injustice.  Try,  Sir, 
whether  you  can  reconcile  that  opinion  with  the 
following  extracts. — M  The  truth  is,  this  church 
hath  been  persecuted,  because  she  alone,  of  all  the 


108  Letter  XVII. 

churches  in  Europe,  has  had  the  blessing  and  sin- 
gular favour  of  God  to  reform  with  prudence,  mo- 
deration, and  an  exact  and  regular  conduct,  after 
great  and  wise  deliberation,  by  the  consent  of  our 
Bishops,  Convocations,  States,  and  Princes,  without 
tumults  or  hasty  counsels.  So  that  the  Papists 
themselves  do  even  envy  our  primitive  doctrine, 
government,  and  discipline,  and  both  fear  and  hate 
us  more  than  any  other  of  the  reformed  churches. 
—They  are  the  same  things  that  have  raised  the 
spleens  and  animosities  of  the  other  side,  with 
whom,  whatever  is  older  than  Zuinglius  and  Cal- 
vin, is  presently  popery,  and  must  be  destroyed. 
Tell  them  that  Episcopacy  was  settled  in  ail  churches 
in  the  days  of  the  very  Apostles,  and  by  them  ;  and 
they  reply,  the  mystery  of  iniquity  began  then  to 
work;  intimating,  if  not  affirming,  that  this  Holy 
Order  was  a  part  of  it."*  Again :  "  We  believe 
that  there  is  one  church  of  God — that  this  church 
is  the  kingdom,  the  body  and  spouse  of  Christ; 
that  Christ  is  the  only  Prince  of  this  kingdom ;  that 
there  are  in  the  church  divers  orders  of  Ministers ; 
that  there  are  some  who  are  Deacons,  others  who 
are  Presbyters,  and  others  who  are  Bishops."f  If 
any  words  can  be  more  explicit  than  these,  I  know 
not  what  they  are. 

You  refer  your  readers  for  the  quotation  from 
Bishop  Jewel  to  his  defence  of  the  Apology  of  the 

*  Preface  to  his  Apology.  f   Apology,  p.  21. 


Concessions  of  Lpmcopaiiam*  109 

church  of  England,  page  248.  I  have,  Sir,  looked 
over  that  book  from  page  220  to  275,  and  over 
several  other  parts  of  the  volume,  but  without  the 
least  success.  How  is  this  ?  It  is  possible  indeed 
that  I  have  missed  the  place;  but  I  do  not  believe 
that  I  have.  It  is  a  folio  that  I  have  consulted; 
perhaps  you  took  your  quotation  from  a  book  of 
another  size;  or  rather  lk  second  hand,  from  some- 
body else,  who  I  am  convinced  has  made  blunder- 
ing work.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  extracts  which  I 
have  given  from  Jewel* s  Apology,  completely  settle 
the  point. 

Without  attending  to  the  order  of  the  writers 
whom  you  quote,  I  shall  next  notice  what  you  say 
concerning  Bishop  Hall.  You  observe  that  he  M  ex- 
erted himself  in  favour  of  the  divine  right  of  Epis- 
copacy, with  as  much  zeal  and  ability  as  any  man 
of  his  day." 

Now,  Sir,  this  is  all  that  I  am  contending  for. 
I  have  been  obliged  several  times  to  tell  you,  that 
I  am  not  endeavouring  to  unchurch  other  denomi- 
nations. That  is  not  the  question  in  this  discussion. 
Here  a  difference  takes  place  among  Episcopalians ; 
and  we  may  reasonably  expect  that  it  would  ;  for 
the  scripture  has  said  nothing  about  the  conse- 
quences of  the  opinion  I  am  maintaining.  What 
the  essence  of  a  church  is,  neither  Presbyterians, 
nor  Episcopalians,  have  as  yet  determined.  Upon 
the  question,  what  defect  unchurches,  unanimity 
is  not  to  be  looked  for.     Some  Presbyterians  say? 

Vol.  II.  L 


UO  Letter  XVII. 

the  want  of  a  ministry  unchurches ;  others  say,  it 
does  not.  Some  of  them  say,  that  lay  baptism  is 
invalid ;  others  say,  no.  Some  unchurch  Indepen- 
dents and  Quakers,  and  some  other  denominations. 
Other  Presbyterians  do  not.  When  you  shall  have 
the  good  fortune  to  agree  among  yourselves,  what 
is  the  precise  point  at  which  a  church  loses  that 
character,  perhaps  your  discoveries  will  lead  Epis- 
copalians to  unanimity;  till  then,  I  fearr  we  shall 
not  be  agreed,  whether  the  divine  right  of  Episco- 
pacy necessarily  involves  the  consequence,  that 
denominations  which  have  not  Bishops,  when  it 
proceeds  from  necessity,  want  a  valid  ministry; 
and  whether,  again,  the  want  of  such  a  ministry 
completely  unchurches. 

That  Bishop  Hall  maintained  Episcopacy  upon 
the  ground  of  divine  right,  you  acknowledge  ;  and 
yet  that  he  did  not  think  Episcopacy  absolutely  es- 
sential to  the  being  of  a  church,  is  very  certain. 
He  considered  that  want,  as  the  Synod  of  Dort 
itself  did,  a  circumstance  much  to  be  lamented. 
Both  he  and  they  viewed  it  as  unavoidable ;  and, 
therefore,  a  misfortune,  and  not  a  crime. 

It  is,  Sir,  rather  an  amusing  circumstance,  that 
what  you  deem  a  concession,  those  staunch  Pres- 
byterian divines,  to  whom  the  epithet  of  Smectym- 
nuan  has  been  given,  should  deem  no  concession 
at  all.  Those  divines  drew  up  a  reply  to  the  hum- 
ble remonstrance,  supposed  to  have  been  written  by 
Bishop  Hall    The  good  Bishop,  either  from  a  con- 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians,  111 

viction  of  the  correctness  of  the  opinion,  or  from 
an  unwillingness  to  give  offence,  softened  his  doc- 
trine in  the  following  manner.  "  By  divine  right, 
is  not  to  be  understood  an  express  law  of  God  re- 
quiring Episcopacy,  as  of  absolute  necessity,  to  the 
being  of  a  church ,  but  an  institution  of  the  Apos- 
tles, inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  warranting  it  where 
it  is,  and  requiring  it  where  it  may  be  had."  This 
distinction  was  considered,  by  the  Smectymnuan 
divines,  as  no  distinction  at  all.  They  say,  "  If 
not  requiring  it  to  the  being  of  a  church,  how  then  ? 
Requiring  it  only  where  it  may  be  had!  What  a 
strange  limitation  is  this  ?  Where  is  it  that  Epis- 
copacy may  not  be  had,  must  not  be  had,  if  it  be 
an  ordinance  of  Christ?  Where  is  it  that  the 
church  of  Christ  may  not  have  word,  sacraments, 
pastors,  and  Bishops  too,  if  they  be  his  ordinance  ? 
What  is  the  meaning  of  this,  where  it  may  be  had? 
Does  he  mean  where  it  may  be  had  with  the  favour 
of  the  Prince  ?  Then  the  primitive  church  had 
never  had  any.  Or  where  it  may  be  had  with  the 
willing  subjection  of  the  people  ?  Then  Episco- 
pacy shall  be  an  ordinance,  if  the  people  will  have 
it  so.  Where  it  may  be  had!  What  ?  With  quiet 
and  conveniency  ?  Then  you  make  that  which  you 
call  an  ordinance  of  God  subject  to  man's  conve 
nience.  Or  what  ?  With  possibility  ?  Requiring 
that  where  Episcopacy  may  be  had  possibly,  it 
should  ?     What  is  this  less  than  a  command  r';" 

*  Brett  on  Episccpacy,  p.  144,  145. 


11.2  Letter  XVII. 

Thus  you  see,  Sir,  that  those  divines  did  not  con- 
sider the  Bishop's  distinction  as  worth  their  ac- 
ceptance. This,  however,  was  the  usual  distinc- 
tion at  that  time,  in  order  to  save  the  Reformed 
churches,  and  I  believe  it  has  been  generally  made 
ever  since. 

What  I  have  said  with  respect  to  Hall,  will  an- 
swer very  well  for  Davenant,  He  also  maintained 
the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy  j  but  at  the 
same  time  did  not  think  it  essential  to  the  very 
being  of  a  church. 

The  next  person  who  deserves  attention  is,  Arch- 
bishop Usher, 

It  is  well  known  that  this  celebrated  writer,  when 
speaking  of  the  difference  between  Bishops  and 
Presbyters,  generally  used  the  language  of  the 
schoolmen.  He  considered  the  difference  between 
them  to  consist  in  a  superiority  of  degree,  as  be- 
tween the  High  Priest  and  the  Priests,  and  not 
in  a  superiority  of  order.  This  is  evident  from 
the  quotation  which  you  have  given  us.  It  further 
appears  from  that  quotation,  that  the  Archbishop 
considered  ordination  by  Presbyters  schism  atkal, 
except  in  cases  of  necessity — that  he  considered 
churches  without  Bishops,  very  muck  defective; 
and  that  the  churches  in  France  are  in  this  re- 
spect more  excusable,  because  they  live  under  a 
Popish  power ;  and,  therefore,  are  less  able  to  re- 
medy the  defect.  It  is  then  sufficiently  evident, 
that  the  difference  between  Usher  and  other  Epis- 


Co7icession$  of  Episcopalians.  113 

copalians  was  principally  verbal.  He  ascribed  a  real 
pre-eminence  to  the  Bishop,  which  was  communi- 
cated by  a  new  ordination  ;  but  he  considered  that 
pre-eminence  as  raising  a  Bishop  to  a  higher  degree 
in  the  priesthood,  but  not  as  constituting  a  distinct 
order.  This  is,  in  truth,  a  matter  of  no  conse- 
quence. 

The  opinion  of  the  Archbishop,  with  respect  to 
this  subject,  is  given  us  by  Dr.  Bernard,  who  was 
many  years  his  chaplain.  The  following  are  the 
Doctor's  words.  tt  For  that  superiority  only  in 
degree  which  he  (the  Primate)  saith  a  Bishop  hath 
above  a  Presbyter,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  an 
arbitrary  matter,  at  the  pleasure  of  men,  but  that 
he  held  it  to  be  of  Apostolical  institution,  and  no 
more  a  diminution  of  the  pre-eminency  and  autho- 
rity of  Episcopacy,  than  the  denomination  of  lights 
given  in  common  by  Moses  to  all  of  them  in  the 
firmament,  detracts  from  the  sun  and  moon,  whom 
he  calls  the  greater,  and  were  assigned  of  God  to 
have  the  rule  of  the  rest ;  though  the  difference  be- 
tween them  be  only  gradual,  yet  there  is  a  deriva- 
tive subordination,  as  the  pre-eminency  of  the  first 
born  was  but  gradual,  they  were  all  brethren,  but 
to  him  was  given  of  God,  the  excellency,  or  su- 
premacy of  dignity  arid  pozver,  to  him  they  must 
bow,  or  be  subject,  and  he  must  have  the  rule  over 
them.  And  that  this  gradus  is  both  derived  from 
the  pattern  prescribed  by  God  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  from  the  imitation  thereof  brought  in  by  the 


lftt  Letter  XVII. 

Apostles,  and  confirmed  by  Christ  in  the  time  of 
the  Newy  the  Primate  hath  so  fully  confirmed  in 
that  learned  tractate  of  his,  of  the  Original  of  Bi- 
shops, which  he  hath  deduced  from  the  Apostolical 
times,  that  I  know  not  what  can  be  added."* 

It  is  now  evident  that  Usher  believed  Episcopacy 
to  be  an  Apostolical  institution;  and  this  he  abun- 
dantly proves  in  the  above  named  tract.  Yet  the 
Archbishop  did  not  think  those  who  were  without 
Bishops  from  necessity,  thereby  unchurched  ;  but 
declares  his  readiness  to  communicate  with  them, 
were  he  among  them  ;  but  those  who  can  have  Bi* 
shops  and  will  not,  (as  was  the  case  with  the  Dis- 
senters in  England  and  Ireland)  he  considered  as 
schismatics,  with  whom  he  could  not  possibly  com- 
municate. This,  I  believe,  is  a  correct  view  of  the 
Archbishop's  sentiments ;  and  it  evidently  does  not 
come  up  to  your  wish,  which  is,  to  make  that  great 
Prelate  speak  in  favour  of  the  human  institution  of 
Episcopacy. 

Stillingfeet  is  another  writer  whom  you  quote. 
His  famous  Irenicum  is  always  mentioned  by  our 
opponents  with  great  applause.  He  wrote  that 
book  when  he  was  about  twenty-four  years  old,  with 
a  view  to  moderate  the  violent  controversies  which 
the  dissenters  unceasingly  kept  alive  against  the 
church.  He  perceived  that  so  long  as  both  parties 
placed  their  respective  regimen  on  the  ground  of 

*  The  judgment  of  the  late  Archbishop,  &c.  p.  127 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians*  llo 

divine  right,  there  .was  a  great  gulph  between 
them,  which  could  not  be  passed  by  either.  He, 
therefore,  from  a  too  sanguine  hope  of  reconciling 
them,  adopted  a  neutral  principle,  viz.  that  the 
scriptures  prescribe  no  form  of  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment ;  but  have  left  it  to  the  prudence  of  every 
church  to  regulate  itself  by  existing  circumstances. 
This  is  a  specious  principle,  which  would  most  cer- 
tainly captivate  numbers.  But  had  that  young  di* 
vine  been  acquainted  with  human  nature,  he  would 
not  have  entertained  much  hope  of  success  from  his 
wide  and  comprehensive  scheme.  It  turned  out  as 
all  such  schemes  do — it  displeased  both  parties ; 
and  afterwards,  when  his  judgment  was  matured, 
it  displeased  himself  too.  For  he  says  in  his 
preface  to  the  Unreasonableness  of  Separation^ 
•*  Will  you  not  allow  one  single  person  who  hap- 
pened to  write  about  these  matters  when  he  was 
very  young,  in  twenty  years  time  of  the  most  busy 
and  thoughtful  part  of  his  life,  to  see  reason  to  alter 
his  judgment  Py  In  a  sermon  preached  on  the  oc- 
casion of  an  ordination  at  St.  Paul's ,  many  years 
after  he  wrote  his  Irenicum,  when  his  judgment 
was  perfectly  matured,  and  his  reading  had  become 
more  extensive,  and  better  digested  ;  on  that  occa- 
sion, when  he  would  be  particularly  attentive  to 
what  he  said,  and  would  not  suffer  the  warmth  of 
imagination  to  hurry  him  into  bold  and  positive  as- 
sertions, he  thus  seriously  speaks :  u  I  cannot  find 
-any  argument  of  force  in  the  New  Testament  to 


116  Letter  XVIL 

prove  that  ever  the  Christian  churches  were  under 
the  sole  government  of  Presbyters."  Again :  "  This 
succession  was  not  in  mere  presidency  of  order;  but 
the  Bishops  succeeded  the  Apostles  in  the  govern- 
ment over  those  churches."  Further :  "  There  is 
as  great  reason  to  believe  the  Apostolical  succession 
to  be  of  divine  institution^  as  the  canon  of  scripture, 
or  the  observation  of  the  Lord's  day"  And  in  his 
Unreasonableness  of  Separation,  he  asserts,  that 
44  the  case  of  Timothy  is  an  uncontrollable  instance 
•f  diocesan  Episcopacy." 

But  it  seems  all  this  is  but  "  a  kind  of  vague  and 
feeble  recantation."  If  this  be  "  a  vague  and  fee- 
ble" I  beg  you  will  let  us  know  what  a  precise  and 
strong  recantation  is.  When  a  man  at  one  time 
saysvthat  Episcopacy  is  not  a  divine  institution,  and, 
at  another,  says  k  is;  he  must  have  remarkably  nice 
discernment,  who  perceives  this  to  be  nothing  more 
than  "  a  vague  and  feeble  recantation." 

This  change  of  opinion  in  Stilling  fleet,  after  all, 
is,  I  acknowledge,  of  no  material  consequence  i  but 
then  I  must,  at  the  same  time,  think,  that  those 
who  rely  so  much  upon  his  opinion  at  the  age  of 
twenty-four,  and  treat  with  so  much  indifference 
his  opinion  at  the  age  of  forty-five,  act  very  pre- 
posterously, if  they  consider  merely  the  opinion  of 
a  learned  man,  and  not  the  weight  of  the  reasons 
upon  which  the  opinion  is  founded.  For  the  opi- 
nions of  learned  men  are  often  as  worthless  as  those 
of  the  unlearned. 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians.  317 

Weil  then,  the  opinion  of  Stillingfeet,  whether 
for  or  against  Episcopacy,  is  of  no  consequence  ; 
but  it  seems  the  reasonings  and  authorities  "  upon 
which  he  grounds  his  opinions  have  undergone  no 
change."  This  is  undoubtedly  correct:  They  have 
precisely  the  same  force  now  that  they  ever  had. 
But  is  not  that  the  case  also  with  respect  to  his  latter 
opinions?  You  will  undoubtedly  say — yes.  We 
are  come  then  to  this  point,  Stilling  fleet,  in  his  Ire- 
nicum,  is  neither  an  Episcopalian,  nor  a  Presbyte- 
rian ;  he  has  taken  neutral  ground ;  and  the  reason* 
ings  and  authorities  by  which  he  maintains  his 
ground,  bear  equally  upon  both  parties.  This  being 
the  true  state  of  the  case,  why,  Sir,  do  you  name 
him?  Does  he  support  Presbytery  upon  the  ground 
of  divine  right?  He  certainly  does  not.  He  labours 
to  prove  that  it  has  no  title  to  that  sanction.  He 
does  the  same  with  respect  to  Episcopacy.  If  then 
his  "  reasonings  and  authorities"  have  never  been 
answered  either  by  himself  or  others,  they  dis- 
prove the  principle  upon  which  both  parties  rest 
their  regimen  ;  and,  consequently,  the  constitution 
of  the  Christian  church  is  a  matter  subjected  to 
men's  disposal.  Are  you  prepared,  Sir,  to  adopt 
this  principle  ? 

Were  I  to  leave  the  matter  here,  Stilling  feet's 
Irenicum  would  do  us  no  more  harm  than  it  does 
you ;  nor  you  any  more  good  than  it  does  us.  But 
we  have  something  to  say  which  you  have  not. 
The  learned  author  certainly  changed  his  opinion  ; 


US  Letter  XVII. 

and  still  more,  he  wrote  in  favour  of  Apostolical, 
Diocesan  Episcopacy.  Now,  as  that  is  the  point 
in  dispute,  if  he  has  proved  it,  he  has  answered 
his  Irenicum,  although  he  has  not  made  a  reply  to 
every  thing  asserted  in  that  book.  When  the  foun- 
dation is  removed,  the  building-  must  necessarily  fall 
to  the  ground.  His  "  reasonings  and  authorities" 
appeared  to  himself,  and  I  believe  they  do  to  all 
Episcopalians,  to  go  to  the  very  point  of  establish- 
ing Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of  Apostolical  in- 
stitution ;  and,  if  so,  the  Irenicum  is  substantially 
refuted. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Not  only  Stilling  fleet  him- 
self, but  others  have  refuted  all  the  leading  princi- 
ples of  that  book.  I  do  not,  indeed,  know  of  any 
author  who  has  professedly  and  formally  answered 
the  whole  of  it ;  but  several  have  taken  particular 
reasons  and  authorities,  and  have  shown  the  one 
fallacious,  and  the  other  ill  founded ;  and  Stilling- 
jleet  himself  must  have  thought  so,  otherwise  he 
would  not  have  changed  his  opinion.  You  indeed 
intimate,  that  he  was  influenced  in  this  change  by 
the  hope  of  preferment,  and  the  fear  of  giving  of- 
fence, if  he  adhered  to  the  principles  of  the  Ireni- 
cum. But  this  is  too  gross  an  imputation,  and  ut- 
terly unworthy  of  a  candid  and  liberal  mind. 

Further  still.  If  Stilling  fleet's  "  reasonings  and 
authorities"  have  not  been  answered,  it  certainly 
rnust  be  because  they  cannot  be  answered ;  for  as- 
suredly  it  could  not  have  proceeded  from  a  want  o£ 


Concess  ions  of  Episcopalians.  119 

learning,  talents,  and  zeal.  I  must  then  suppose 
that  ycu  have  adopted  those  unanswerable  u  rea- 
sonings and  authorities,"  otherwise  you  are  not 
true  to  your  cause.  But  seriously,  Sir,  it  does  not 
appear  to  me,  nor  to  any  Episcopalian  that  I  have 
heard  give  an  opinion  upon  your  book,  that  you 
have  said  any  thing  that  is  unanswerable.  I  cannot 
but  flatter  myself  that  every  thing  you  have  said 
has  been  pretty  well  sifted,  and  that  the  result  is  a 
vast  deal  more  chaff  than  wheat. 

You  next  quote  Bishop  Burnet  as  a  friend  to 
parity  of  ministers  ;  or,  at  least,  that  imparity  is  a 
matter  left  to  human  prudence. — u  I  acknowledge 
(says  he)  Bishop  and  Presbyter  to  be  one  and  the 
same  office,  and  so  plead  for  no  new  office-bearer 
in  the  church."       x  . 

Whatever  Burnet  may  have  been  when  he  was  a 
Professor  in  the  college  of  Glasgow,  at  which  time 
he  wrote  his  vindication  of  the  church  of  Scotland^ 
certain  it  is,  that  he  was  afterwards  an  Episcopalian 
upon  the  ground  of  Apostolic  and  divine  right. 
In  examining  the  principles  of  the  Reformers,  I 
have  produced  several  quotations  which  expressly 
maintain  that  doctrine.  I  will  now  give  another 
from  the  Bishop's  exposition  of  the  thirty-nine 
Articles.*  "  Christ  appointed  a  succession  of 
pastors  in  different  ranks,  to  be  continued  in  his 
church  for  the  work  of  the  gospel,  and  that  as  the 

•  Page  ?84. 


120  Letter  XVIL 

Apostles  setded  the  churches,  they  appointed  dif- 
ferent orders  of  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons." 
There  certainly  is  nothing  for  you  to  say  after  this. 
That  Burnet,  however,  admitted  a  case  of  necessity 
is  undoubtedly  true.  This  has  always  been  the 
salvo  :  The  church  is  imperfect  without  Bishops  ; 
but  where  they  cannot  be  had,  men  must  submit 
to  the  privation,  and  do  as  well  as  they  can;  for 
necessity,  says  Burnet,  has  no  law.* 

That  Tillotson,  whom  you  introduce  to  our  notice, 
was  a  very  moderate  churchman,  is  pretty  well  un- 
derstood. If  he  had  not  been  a  sort  of  neutral 
man,  it  is  probable  that  he  would  not  have  been 
nominated  to  the  See  of  Canterbury  by  king  William, 
who,  you  know,  was  a  rigid  Presbyterian.  Tillot- 
son was,  I  believe,  as  low  with  respect  to  the  regi- 
men, as  the  doctrines  of  the  church.  He  Was 
strongly  suspected  of  Arianism  and  Universalism ; 
and  men  of  such  principles  care  very  litde  about 
church  order,  any  farther  than  as  it  contributes  to 
decency. 

That  Wake,  Bi?igham,  Prettyman,  and  Gisborne, 
assert  the  Apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacy,  the 
extracts  you  have  given  us  fully  prove.  Bingham 
and  Wake,  particularly  the  former,  are  among  its 
ablest  advocates.    Yet  these  four  divines  do  not 


*  Since  I  sent  my  manuscript  to  the  press,  I  have  found 
another  testimony  from  Burnet.  He  says,  "  Whereas  by  di- 
vine institution,  all  Bishops  were  equal,  both  in  order  and  juris- 
diction," &c.     Preface  to  Find.  Ord.  Cb.  of  England. 


Concess  i  ons  of  Ep  iscopalians,  121 

consider  it  as  essential  to  the  very  being  of  a  church* 
When  Christians  can  have  it,  they  ought  to  have  it; 
but  when  they  cannot,  necessity  frees  them  from  all 
blame.  This  appears  to  be  the  more  common  opi- 
nion of  Episcopalians. 

Lord  King,  whom  you  quote,  wrote  a  book  to 
prove  that  Congregational  Episcopacy  is  an  Apos- 
tolical institution.  He  was  answered  by  Slater,  a 
Presbyter  of  the  church  of  England ;  and  so  com- 
pletely was  he  refuted,  that  Lord  King  himself 
became  sensible  of  his  error,  and  acknowledged 
Slater  s  victor)-.  This  has  always  been  confidently 
asserted.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain,  that 
his  Lordship  never  made  any  reply,  nor  has  any 
other  person  done  it  for  him,  that  I  have  ever  heard 
of.  Indeed,  Congregational  Episcopacy  has  so  little 
to  be  said  in  its  favour,  that  no  learning,  nor  inge- 
nuity can  give  it  the  smallest  degree  of  plausibility. 
It  was  never  thought  of  till  some  years  after  the  Re- 
formation; and  its  weakness  and  novelty  have  been 
so  completely  exposed  by  Siillingjleet,  Maurice^ 
Bingham,  and  Slater,  that  it  is  astonishing  to  me 
that  it  should  have  been  revived  by  Dr.  Campbell^ 
and  maintained  by  yourself  with  only  one  point 
of  difference.  But,  as  I  have  already  observed, 
the  controversy,  every  now  and  then,  must  be  re- 
vived ;  and  our  opponents,  not  being  deficient  in 
sagacity,  see  very  clearly,  that  it  will  not  do  to  take 
notice  of  the  several  triumphant  answers  that  have 
been  given,  at  different  times,  to  their  hypothesis. 

Vol.  II,  M 


122  Letter   XVII. 

You  have  given  us,  Sir,  two  or  three  extracts 
from  a  Bishop  Crofts,  whose  name  is  so  obscure, 
that  not  one  of  our  clergy  in  this  city  have  ever  heard 
of  him.  All  I  know  about  him,  is  contained  in  a 
prefatory  discourse  to  an  examination  of  Burnet's 
Exposition  of  the  thirty-nine  Articles.  The  author 
says,  "  There  was  a  pamphlet  in  King  Charles  the 
second's  reign,  called  Naked  Truth,  that  made  a 
great  deal  of  noise  for  a  while,  because  it  was  sup- 
posed to  be  written  by  a  Bishop,  with  whose  station 
and  character,  the  scope  and  design  of  k  did  very 
ill  agree  ;  which  was  to  undermine  the  church, 
throw  down  its  walls,  and  lay  all  open.  What  was 
principally  aimed  at,  and  zealously  contended  for, 
was  liberty  of  thought  and  opinion ;  scarce  allowing 
it  to  be  fit  to  tye  men  up  to  any  sort  of  doctrine  by 
creeds  or  subscriptions  ;  much  less  to  confine  men 
to  any  particular  constitution,  be  it  that  of  Episco- 
pacy, or  any  other  whatever," 

"  Whatever  prospect  the  author  of  that  book 
might  have  at  the  time  he  published  it,  the  opposi- 
tion which  the  project  of  a  comprehension  scored 
out  in  it,  met  with,  at  that  time,  quashed  all  hopes 
of  it  during  that  reign." 

It  appears  from  this  account,  that  Crofts  was  a 
man  of  very  comprehensive  principles,  an  enemy 
to  all  creeds  and  subscriptions,  and  disposed  to  let 
into  the  church,  men  of  all  principles,  both  as 
to  doctrine  and  government.  If  doctrine  was  not 
regarded  by  such  a  man,    certainly  government 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians*  V2o 

would  not  be.« — He  was  answered,  I  find,  by  Bi- 
shop Burnet,  and  some  others. 

As  to  Willet,  Holland,  Whitaker,  Forbes,  and 
Moreton,  as  I  have  not  access  to  their  works,  I  can- 
not say  any  thing  to  the  quotations  you  have  given 
us.  They  may  be  correct  or  not.  I  will  admit 
them  to  be  perfectly  so.  And  then  I  ask,  what  do 
you  infer  from  them?  It  must  be  either  some- 
thing, or  nothing".  Nothing,  you  will  hardly  avow. 
What  then  is  the  something?  Is  it,  that  it  is  pro- 
bable Episcopacy  is  a  human  institution,  because 
these  five  men  (or  twenty  times  five,  if  you  please) 
thought  so?  Of  that  inference,  I  know  you  would 
be  ashamed.  Well  then,  if  it  adds  nothing  to  the 
probability  of  the  opinion,  the  inference  is,  pre- 
cisely— nothing.  Thus,  Sir,  you  have  thrown  away 
your  time,  and  have  made  me  throw  away  mine. 

I  have  now  shown,  I  think,  with  uncontrollable 
evidence,  that  the  Reformers  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, and  all  her  greatest  and  best  writers,  on  the 
subject  of  ecclesiastical  regimen,  maintain  the  Apos- 
tolical and  Divine  right  of  Episcopacy.  Yet,  at  the 
same  time  I  acknowledge,  that  they  do  not  consider 
•it  as  essential  to  the  very  being  of  a  church ;  but  afcer 
making  this  concession,  they  insist  upon  it  as  ne- 
cessary to  a  well  organized,  sound,  and  perfectly 
Apostolical  church  ;  and  that  a  departure  from  it 
where  it  is,  is  an  unjustifiable  schism  ;  except  when 
a  church  imposes  upon  its  members  sinful  terms  of 
communion. 


124  Letter  XVIL 

But  although  there  are  many  great  names,  who 
have  thus  mitigated  the  principle,  that  Episcopacy 
is  of  divine  right ;  yet  it  must  also  be  acknowledged, 
that  there  are  many  who  do  not  admit  these  quali- 
fications, but  insist  upon  it,  and  give  reasons  of 
great  weight  for  their  opinion,  that  if  Episcopacy 
be  a  divine  institution,  it  must  be  essential  to  a 
Christian  church,  if  a  ministry  be  so.  But  if  a 
ministry  be  not  essential  to  a  church,  then  they  ac- 
knowledge that  Episcopacy  is  not.  This  question 
I  shall  not  discuss  at  this  late  period  of  the  contro- 
versy ;  nor  indeed  do  I  think,  that  it  is  a  question  a 
conscientious  man  would  wait  to  have  decided, 
were  he  about  to  make  a  choice  of  the  church  to 
which  he  should  attach  himself.  He  would,  it  apr 
pears  to  me,  reason  thus.  If  Episcopacy  be  a  di- 
vine institution,  it  is  my  duty  to  become  a  member 
of  that  church  in  which  it  is  found,  unless  sinful 
terms  of  communion  be  required.  Whether 
Episcopacy  be  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church, 
or  not,  certain  I  am  that  it  is  my  duty  to  submit 
to  a  divine  institution.  By  this  submission,  I  shall 
be  free  from  all  doubts  and  difficulties  ;  but  should 
I  act  otherwise,  I  must  rely  altogether  upon  my 
own  reasoning,  and  that  of  others.  This  may,  or 
may  not  be  right ;  but  in  the  other  case,  I  shall  be 
perfectly  free  from  all  misgivings.  This  appears 
to  me  to  be  the  conclusion,  at  which  a  conscien- 
tious man  would  arrive. 

Before  I  conclude  this  letter,  it  may  be  well  for 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians.  125 

me  to  state,  in  what  sense  I  consider  Episcopacy  as 
resting  upon  the  ground  of  divine  right, 
■   A  thing  may  be  said  to  be  divinely  instituted,  in 
three  senses. 

1.  As  God  positively  ordains  it  by  his  own  ex- 
press command,  or  by  the  express  command  of  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ.  In  this  sense,  I  do  not  take 
Episcopacy  to  be  a  divine  institution.  Nor  in  this 
sense,  is  the  Christian  sabbath,  or  infant  baptism, 
or  the  canon  of  scripture,  entitled  to  the  sanction  cl 
divine  institution. 

2.  A  thing  may  be  said  to  be  of  divine  institution, 
when  it  is  delivered  by  men  divinely  inspired  ;  as 
are  all  those  precepts  and  ordinances,  delivered  by 
the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  by  divine  inspiration. 
Every  thing  of  that  kind  must  be  deemed  of  divine 
institution,  because  God,  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  has 
commanded  it. 

3.  Whatever  is  founded  upon  a  divine  commis- 
sion, as  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,  and  the  power  of  the 
keys,  is  of  divine  institution. 

In  the  two  last  senses,  I  take  Episcopacv  to  be 
of  divine  institution.  For,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  in- 
spired the  Apostles  to  establish  Episcopacy  in  the 
church,  it  is  certainly  of  divine  institution,  although 
there  may  be  no  express  and  formal  precept  for  that 
purpose.  Or  if  the  Apostles,  by  virtue  of  the  com- 
mission which  they  received  from  Jesus  Christ,  es- 
tablished Episcopacv,  it  must,  if  not  immediate! v, 
M2 


126  Letter  XVII. 

yet  mediately,  be  grounded  upon  divine  institution. 
For  if  the  Apostolic  commission  was  founded  upon 
divine  authority,  as  it  certainly  was,  then  all  com- 
missions derived  from  that  source,  and  within  the 
limits  of  that  commission,  are  also  mediately 
founded  upon  divine  authority  ;  and  in  this  sense, 
at  the  least,  every  one  that  believes  Episcopacy 
not  to  be  a  mere  human  institution,  must  believe  it 
to  have  a  divine  sanction. 

This  statement  is,  I  believe,  agreeable  to  the 
sentiments  of  the  best  writers  on  our  side  of  the 
question.  I  am  sure  that  it  perfectly  coincides  with 
the  opinion  of  Bishop  Saunderson*  After  observing 
"that  Episcopacy  is  not  founded  upon  a  peremptory 
command  of  God  in  his  word,  he  says,  "  There  is 
a  secondary  and  more  extended  signification  of  that 
term,  [divine  right]  which  is  also  of  frequent  use 
among  divines.  In  which  sense  such  things,  as  hav- 
ing no  express  command  in  the  word,  yet  are  found 
to  have  authority  and  warrant  from  the  institution, 
example,  and  approbation,  either  of  Christ  himself, 
•or  his  Apostles  ;  and  have  (in  regard  of  the  im- 
portance and  usefulness  of  the  things  themselves) 
been  held  by  the  consentient  judgment  of  all  the 
churches  of  Christ  in  the  primitive  and  succeeding 
ages,  needful  to  be  continued :  such  things,  I  say, 
are  usually  and  interpretatively  said  to  be  of  divine 
•%ht." 

Again  he  says;  "  They,  therefore,  that  so  speak 
of  this  government  as  established  by  divine  right, 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians,   _       122 

are  not  all  of  them  necessarily  to  be  understood,  as 
if  they  meant  it  in  that  first  and  strictest  sense  [as- 
founded  upon  positive  precept].  Sufficient  it  is  for 
the  justification  of  the  church  of  England,  in  the 
constitution  and  government  thereof,  that  it  is  (as 
it  certainly  is)  of  divine  right  in  the  latter  and 
larger  signification  ;  that  is  to  say,  of  Apostolical 
institution  and  approbation;  exercised  by  the  Apos- 
tles themselves,  and  by  other  persons  in  their  times, 
appointed  and  enabled  thereunto  by  them,  accord- 
ing to  the  voice  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by 
virtue  of  the  commission  they  had  received  from 
him." 

"  Which,  besides  that  it  is  clear  from  evident 
texts  of  scripture,  and  from  the  testimony  of  as 
ancient  and  authentic  records,  as  the  world  hath 
any  to  show  for  the  attesting  of  any  other  part  of 
the  established  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England; 
so  it  is  evidently  deduced  out  of  sundry  passages  in 
the  book  of  Consecration,  and  hath  been  constantly 
and  uniformly  maintained  by  our  best  writers,  and 
by  all  the  sober,  orderly,  and  orthodox  sons  of  this 
church."* 

Thus,  Sir,  I  think  it  is  as  clear  that  the  Episco- 
pal order  is  of  divine  institution,  as  that  the  order  . 
of   Presbyters  is.      There  is  no  positive  precept 
which  ordains  the  office  of  a  Presbyter ;  but  we  see 
that  order  in  the  scriptures,  and  we  know  that  it 

*  Saur.derson's  Episcopacy  not  prejudicial  to  Re^al  power, 
-ect.  ii.  No.  3,  4,  6. 


128  Letter  XVTL 

was  the  sense  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  whole 
primitive  church,  that  it  was  to  be  continued  to  the 
end  of  the  world. 

There  is  no  possibility  of  guarding  any  doctrine 
©f  Christianity,  or  any  of  its  institutions,  from  the 
cavils  of  men  wedded  to  their  own  systems,  and 
peculiar  ways  of  thinking.  There  is  no  objection 
that  has  been  made  by  the  Presbyterians  against 
Episcopacy,  that  has  not  been  made  by  Indepen- 
dents against  Presbytery ;  and  what  is  not  a  little 
amusing,  the  Presbyterians  were  obliged  to  have 
recourse  to  the  weapons  of  Episcopalians,  in  order 
to  defend  themselves.  It  is  curious  to  read  the  con- 
troversy between  those  two  denominations  of  dis- 
senters, as  we  have  it  in  the  Jus  divinum,  &c.  When 
the  Independents  denied  the  perpetuity  of  the  mi- 
nistry by  an  uninterrupted  succession,  the  Presbyte- 
rian divines  replied,  U  All  that  is  written  in  the 
epistles  concerning  the  ordainers  and  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  ordained,  is  directed  to  Timothy  and 
Titus"  To  prove  the  constant  succession  of  the  mi- 
nistry, they  argue  like  staunch  churchmen — "  That 
Christ  was  sent,  and  had  his  commission  from  his 
Father.  That  Christ,  as  he  was  sent  of  his  Father, 
so  he  sent  forth  his  Apostles.  That  the  Apostles 
went  about  ordaining  Elders  in  every  church,  and 
that  the  Apostle  Paul  ordained  Timothy  and  Titus, 
[Mark  this.]  That  these  ordained  others,  and  that 
as  Timothy  was  entrusted  with  the  word  of  Christ, 
so  he  was  commanded  to  commit  the  same  trust  to 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians,  12$ 

faithful  men,  that  so  there  might  be  a  succession  of 
teachers."  They  also  urge  Matt,  xxviii.  20,  "  I 
am  ahvav  with  you,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
And  1  Tim.  vi.  14,  "  Keep  this  commandment 
until  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;"  and 
several  other  texts. 

When  the  assembly  urge  against  the  Indepen- 
dents the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  the  practice  of 
antiquity,  and  of  all  former  ages,  for  a  succession 
of  ministers,  the  fanatics  pay  them  in  their  own 
coin,  telling  them  that  "  corruptions,  and  antichris- 
tianism,  and  tyranny,  came  very  early  into  the 
church  ;  that  the  mystery,  and  the  ministry  of  the 
man  of  sin  were  working  in  the  first  centuries ;  that 
in  this  apostacy,  the  church,  which  had  been  a  chaste 
virgin,  became  the  mother  of  harlots  and  abomina- 
tions— Bethel  turned  into  Betkaven,  and  the  minis- 
try wholly  lost  under  antichrist." 

To  this  the  Westminster  divines  reply,  that  "  the 
truths,  ordinances,  servants,  and  ministries  of  Christ, 
do  not,  therefore,  cease  to  be  of  Christ,  because 
some,  either  by  mistake  or  by  design,  shall  say,  they 
are  of  antichrist — that  it  is  a  great  cheat  put  upon 
the  saints  of  God  in  this  nation,  in  scaring  people 
from  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  by  persuading  them  to 
avoid  anti-Christ."  And,  therefore,  they  earnestly 
entreat  their  respective  congregations  u  not  to  be 
affrighted  at  the  bug-bear  words  anti-christian  and 
popish."  They  tell  the  fanatics,  that  ■  no  true  mi- 
nistry, -no  true  church— that  the  Lord  Jesus  hath 


130  Letter  XVII. 

given  the  ministry  to  the  church,  to  continue  till 
all  come  to  the  unity  of  the  faith,  which  will  not  be 
till  the  day  of  judgment." 

I  shall  make  but  one  more  extract  from  the  Jus 
divinum.  When  the  fanatics  assert  that  the  people 
have  a  right  to  ordain  ministers,  the  Assembly  ask—- 
"  By  what  authority  do  you  do  these  things,  and 
who  gave  you  this  authority?  Show  us  your  war- 
rant out  of  the  word.  Why  was  Titus  sent  to  ap- 
point Eiders  in  every  city  ?  Might  not  the  people 
say,  what  need  Paul  leave  Titus  to  do  that  which 
we  can  do  ourselves?  Add  that  which  to  us  seems 
of  weight,  that  all  that  is  written  in  the  epistles  con- 
cerning the  ordainers,  and  the  qualifications  of  the 
ordained,  is  all  written  in  the  epistles  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  who  were  church  officers.  In  the  other 
epistles  which  were  written  to  the  churches,  there 
is  no  mention  made  of  these  things,  which  doth 
abundantly  prove  to  us,  that  the  work  of  ordination 
is  a  work  belonging  to  ministers,  and  not  to  the 
people.  And  they  alone  who  have  received  this 
church  power  from  the  Apostles,  can  transmit  it  to 
others.  {Here  is  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession most  clearly.]  Now  let  us  change  but  one 
word,  and  put  Presbyter  instead  of  people,  and  see 
how  those  reverend  gentlemen  plead  the  Episcopal 
cause. — "  By  what  authority  do  you  Presbyters  do 
these  things,  and  who  gave  you  this  authority? 
Why  was  Titus  left  in  Crete,  or  Timothy  in  Ephe- 
$u$,  to  ordain  Elders?    Might  not  those  Elders  saya 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians,  131 

what  need  Paul  leave  Timothy  to  do  that  which  we 
can  do  ourselves  ?  All  that  is  written  in  the  epistle9 
concerning  ordainers,  is  written  in  the  epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus,  who  were  the  church  officers 
for  this  purpose.  In  the  other  epistles  there  is  no 
mention  made  of  these  things,  which  doth  abun- 
dantly prove  that  the  work  of  ordination  is  a  work 
belonging  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  not  to  the 
Presbyters;  and  they  alone  who  have  received  can 
transmit  it."  Thus  the  Presbyterian  calls  on  the 
fanatic  to  show  his  commission  ;  the  Episcopalian, 
with  the  very  same  reason,  calls  upon  the  Presby- 
terian to  show  his. — Where  is  the  consistency  of 
all  this  ? 

I  have  now,  Sir,  examined  every  thing  material 
in  your  letter  upon  the  Concessions  of  Episcopalians, 
and  I  have  shown  that  all  the  authors  whom  you 
quote  (four  or  five  excepted,  whose  works  I  have 
not),  maintained  Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of 
Apostolical  and  divine  right.  There  is,  indeed,  a 
difference  of  opinion  among  Episcopalians  with  re- 
spect to  the  consequences  of  this  principle,  as  there 
is  among  Presbyterians  with  respect  to  the  conse- 
quences of  the  divine  right  of  Presbytery ;  but  this, 
in  either  case,  does  not  affect  the  principle.  It  is, 
therefore,  weak  and  sophistical  to  urge  this  differ- 
ence against  either  Presbytery  or  Episcopacy. 

I  forgot,  Sir,  to  make,  in  their  proper  place,  a  few 
observations  upon  what  you  ascribe  to  Bishop 
White*     It  may  be  well,  although  not  in  order> 


J 32  Letter  XVII. 

just  to  notice  what  you  say.  You  assert  that  he 
maintains,  "  that  the  doctrine  which  founds  Epis- 
copacy upon  divine  right,  has  never  been  embraced 
by  the  great  body  of  the  most  esteemed  divines  in 
the  church  of  England."* 

This  may  be  true,  and  yet  leave  Episcopacy  upon 
as  high  ground  as  I  wish  to  place  it.  By  divine 
right,  Bishop  White  means  positive  precept,  or  a 
direct  command  in  so  many  words,  that  there  shall 
be  three  orders  in  the  church, — Bishops,  Presby- 
ters, and  Deacons,  and  that  they  shall  continue  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  There  is  no  heterodoxy  in 
this  opinion.  All  the  great  Episcopal  writers  ac- 
knowledge this  to  be  the  truth.  But  will  you  venture 
to  assert,  that  Bishop  White  does  not  place  Episco- 
pacy upon  the  ground  of  Apostolical  institution? 
You  certainly  will  not ;  because  the  following  quo- 
tation would  stare  you  in  the  face.  "  There  having 
been  an  Episcopal  power  originally  lodged  by  Jesus 
Christ  with  his  Apostles,  and  by  them  exercised 
generally  in  person,  but  sometimes  by  delegation, 
(as  in  the  instances  of  Timothy  and  Titus  J  the 
same  was  conveyed  by  them  to  one  pastor  in 
each  church,  which  generally  comprehended  all  the 
Christians  in  a  city,  and  a  convenient  surrounding 
district.  Thus  were  created  the  Apostolic  succes- 
sors." Again :  "  It  seemed  good  to  the  Apostles 
to  appoint  some  of  these  with  a  supereminent  com- 

*  Letter  vi>  p.  229. 


Concessions  of  Episcopalians.  1SS 

mission,  of  which  there  were  instances  in  Timothy 
and  Titus;  and  the  persons  so  appointed  have  handed 
down  their  commission  through  the  different  ages 
of  the  church*  This  is  the  originally  constituted 
order."* 

Now  (to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Hobart  with  a  lit- 
tle alteration)  "  if  you  will  make  these  concessions, 
and  hold  this  language,  you  fairly  give  up  your 
cause.  You  maintain  all  that  the  Episcopalian 
could  wish.  And  we  shall  be  glad  to  hear  on  what 
grounds  you  will  justify  your  rejection  of  the  ori- 
ginally constituted  order,  and  of  degrees  of  the  mi- 
nistry, who  had  their  beginning  from  Christ  and  his 
blessed  Apostles" 

It  is  now,  Sir,  very  evident,  that  Bishop  White 
holds  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  in  this  sense  ; 
that  it  was  instituted  by  the  Apostles  under  the  di- 
rection of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and,  consequently,  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He 
surely  then  is  at  variance  with  Presbyterian  parity. 

I  shall  in  my  next  consider  your  letter  upon  "  the 
rise  and  progress  of  Episcopacy." 

*  Hobart's  Apology,  139,  140. 


v    (     134    ) 


LETTER  XVIII. 


Rev.  Sir, 

MY  labour  is  now  happily  drawing  to  a  close,  f 
have  little  more  to  do  than  to  take  a  view  of  your 
fanciful  statement  of  "  the  rise  and  progress  of 
Episcopacy."  I  do  not  conceive  that  it  is  necessary 
for  me  to  do  this ;  for  if  I  have  proved  the  fact, 
that  Episcopacy  is  an  Apostolical  institution,  all  the 
efforts  of  your  ingenuity  to  show  that  it  took  its  rise 
long  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  must  be  ascrib- 
ed to  the  "  audacity  of  fancy,"  and  be  deemed  ut- 
terly inconsistent  with  the  truth  of  history.  No, 
Sir,  it  is  not  because  you  have  said  any  thing  in 
your  eighth  Letter,  which  in  any  degree  affects  the 
evidence  I  have  produced,  that  I  am  led  to  examine 
your  plausible  attempt  to  account  for  what  never  has 
yet  been  accounted  for ;  but  because  I  shall  be  fur- 
nished with  an  opportunity  of  presenting  to  my 
readers,  what  I  deem  complete  moral  demonstra- 
tion, that  Episcopacy  is  not  a  human,  but  a  divine 
institution.  This  is  my  leading  motive  for  conti- 
nuing this  discussion :  my  secondary  motive  is,  to 
show  your  readers,  that  you  have  exhibited  to  them, 
a  perfect  tissue  of  conjectures,  fallacies,  and  mis- 
representations of  facts. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         i  S  S 

There  is  a  question,  which,  at  the  very  outset  of 
ihis  inquiry,  will  occur  to  a  reflecting  mind. — If 
Episcopacy  was  introduced  into  the  church  after 
the  Apostolic  age,  what  can  be  the  reason,  that  it 
cannot  be  determined  by  the  advocates  for  parity, 
when  this  anti-christian  usurpation  took  its  rise. 
Some  of  them  place  it  in  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, before  the  death  of  St.  John,  as  Baxter, 
Chamier,  and  Du  Moulin  ;  others  in  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century,  as  Doddridge  and  Salmasius  ; 
others  in  the  middle  of  that  century,  as  Blondel 
and  the  Westminster  divines  ;  others  at  the  close  of 
that  age,  as  Campbell  and  Chauncey  ;  others  in  the 
third  century,  a  long  list  of  whom  you  will  find 
hi  Sage's  Cyprianic  Age ;  and  others  again  in  the 
fourth  century,  as  yourself,  Lord  King,  and  a  few 
more.  Here  is  a  wide  range  taken  by  our  oppo- 
nents j  not  less  than  the  space  of  two  hundred 
years.  Now,  this  difficulty  of  pointing  out  the  time 
when  Episcopacy  took  its  rise,  must  be  owing 
either  to  a  want  of  records,  or  to  the  very  trifling 
nature  of  the  change.  To  the  first  it  has  never 
been  ascribed;  for  the  records  are  sufficiently 
ample.  Nor  can  it,  with  the  most  distant  appear- 
ance of  reason,  be  ascribed  to  the  latter  ;  for  the 
change  was  very  striking  and  important ;.  no  less 
than  that  of  depriving  the  Presbyters  throughout 
the  whole  Christian  church  of  their  right  of  ordain- 
ing, and  of  establishing  in  one  person  a  supremacy 
of  power  and   jurisdiction.     It  is  not  possible  to 


136  Letter  XVIII. 

consider  such  a  change  as  unimportant,  and  un- 
worthy of  notice.  This  then  is  the  first  presump* 
tive  proof,  that  no  such  change  took  place. 

You  endeavour,  Sir,  to  surmount  the  difficulty, 
which  arises  from  the  wide  difference  of  opinion 
among  Presbyterians,  with  respect  to  the  date  of 
Episcopacy,  by  saying  that  we  cannot  tell  the  time 
when  infant  communion  began  in  the  church.  And 
do  you  seriously  think,  Sir,  that  this,  were  it  true, 
would  obviate  the  difficulty?  How  is  it  possible 
that  you  should  not  see,  that  there  is  no  parrallel 
between  the  two  cases?  What  human  being  did 
■infant  communion  deprive  of  his  rights?  What 
was  there  in  this  practice  to  excite  the  passions  of 
men?  What  to  produce  violent  contention,  and 
strenuous  resistance?  Was  the  adult  injured  by  it? 
Did  it  exclude  him  from  the  altar  ?  Not  a  single 
consideration  can  be  perceived  by  the  human  mind 
to  induce  it  to  think,  that  any  thing  more  than 
verbal  contention  would  be  the  issue.  But  in 
the  other  case,  the  Presbyters  were  deprived  of 
their  most  sacred  rights.  The  right  of  ordaining, 
which  was  given  them  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  which 
they  were  as  sure  belonged  to  them  as  that  they  held 
the  office  of  Presbyters,  was  wrested  out  of  their 
hands.  A  parity  of  power  and  jurisdiction,  which 
they  had  derived  from  the  same  source,  was  abo- 
lished, and  a  supremacy  established  in  an  individual, 
in  every  city.  I  appeal  to  every  man  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  human  nature,  whether  such  flagrant 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         137 

injustice  was  not  sufficient  to  rouse  the  fiercest  pas- 
sions of  the  heart  ?  Let  the  trial  be  made  at  this 
day,  by  a  number  of  the  most  daring  spirits  among 
the  Presbyterian  ministers  in  this  country,  to  seat 
themselves  in  Episcopal  chairs.  To  ask  a  child 
what  would  be  the  issue,  would  be  to  insult  his 
understanding. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  every  reflecting  mind,  that 
there  is  a  great  difference  between  opinions,  which 
do  not  in  the  least  affect  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
others,  and  principles  which  do.  The  former  may 
be  broached  and  spread  considerably,  before  any 
notice  is  taken  of  them.  But  the  latter  immediately 
set  men  upon  exerting  all  the  powers  of  resistance. 
Every  effort  would,  have  been  made  by  the  Presby- 
ters to  prevent  the  execution  of  so  daring  a  project ; 
and  considering  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
church  was,  before  the  establishment  of  Christian- 
ity by  the  Emperor  Comtantine,  it  was  morally  im- 
possible for  the  Bishops  to  succeed  in  their  foolish 
and  wicked  attempt.  There  is,  therefore,  no  parallel 
between  the  two  cases* 

I  think  I  might  safely  trust  this  reasoning  with 
ever)7  impartial  person.  The  difference  between  a 
principle  which  is  perfectly  harmless,  and  one  that, 
when  acted  upon,  is  flagrantly  unjust,  sets  the  two 
cases  at  such  an  immense  distance,  that  I  am  as- 
tonished at  your  bringing  them  to  a  point  of  com- 
parison. But  the  unreasonableness  of  this  mode 
of  removing  the  difficulty  need  not  have  been  in- 
N  2 


lo8  letter  XVIIf. 

sisted  upon,  for  you  have,  by  a  single  sentence,  given 
up  the  point.  Remember  that  the  opponents  of 
Episcopacy  cannot  agree,  whether  it  took  its  rise  in 
the  first,  second,  or  third  century,  or  even  till  some 
time  in  the  fourth.  But  you  say,  "  It  is  certain 
that  this  corruption  [infant  communion]  existed  in 
the  second  century."  Here  you  fix  the  time ;  for 
I  suppose  you  do  not  mean  to  carry  it  up  to  the  first 
century,  and  make  it  an  Apostolical  practice.  Nor 
is  it  at  all  probable  that  it  took  its  rise  early  in  the 
second  century,  while  numbers  were  living  who 
had  seen  the  Apostles  administer  the  holy  com- 
munion. We  must,  therefore,  upon  every  ground 
of  probability,  place  its  beginning  somewhere  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Now,  Sir,  we 
do  not  tie  you  up  in  this  manner.  We  do  not  ask 
you  to  give  us  a  period  of  a  few  years,  when  all  the 
Presbyterians  in  the  world  became  Episcopalians  ; 
although  we  certainly  have  a  right  to  call  for  the  re- 
cord of  such  a  wonderful  revolution.  No,  Sir,  we 
will  not  confine  you  to  so  short  a  period  as fifty  years. 
You  may  take  any  entire  century  you  please  after 
the  first ;  and  if  we  do  not  prove  from  indubitable 
records,  that  Episcopacy  existed  before  your  given 
period,  we  are  willing  to  give  up  the  whole  cause. 

It  seems  then,  that  you  can  tell,  within  a  few 
years,  when  infant  communion  began  ;  but  you  re- 
quest of  us  to  allow  you  between  two  and  three 
hundred  years  for  the  period,  within  which  Epis- 
copacy made  its  appearance,  and  then  you  can 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         IN 

very  confidently  assure  us,  that  its  birth  happened 
within  that  short,  very  short  space.  This  is  very- 
modest,  and  very  consistent.  A  harmless  opinion 
and  practice,  which  could  irritate,  which  could  in- 
jure no  one,  can  be  traced  within  a  few  years  of  its 
birth  ;  but  a  wonderful  revolution,  calculated  to  in- 
flame the  passions  of  thousands,  and  to  produce  v& 
the  church  the  most  violent  convulsions,  the  most 
virulent  animosities,  is  involved  in  such  thick  dark- 
ness, that  it  is  impossible  for  the  greatest  antiquaries 
among  the  Presbyterians  to  tell  us  in  what  century 
this  new  form  of  government  was  given  to  the 
church.  The  man  who  can  believe  this,  needs  not 
to  pray  that  his  faith  may  be  strengthened. 

You  assert,  Sir,  very  confidently,  that  infant  com- 
munion was  the  practice  of  the  church  in  the  se- 
cond century  -,  but,  as  usual,  you  talk  without  book* 
Who  is  your  warrant  for  this  assertion  ?  You  name 
none.  On  the  contrary,  I  assert,  that  there  is  no 
authority  to  be  produced  earlier  than  St,  Cyprian, 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century*  Bingham 
names  that  Prelate  as  the  first  who  mentions  it. 
Neither  Tertullian,  nor  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  nor 
Jreneus,  nor  Justin  Martyr,  say  any  thing  about 
it.  We  have,  therefore,  no  reason  to  think,  that  it 
was  known  in  the  church  till  the  third  century. 
Here  then  the  rule  of  Vincent  his  Lirinensis  com- 
-pletely  fails,  ^uod  semper,  quod  ubique,  quod 
ab  omnibus,  does  not  accord  with  infant  communion  ; 
and,  consequently,  it  is  not  of  Apostolic  institution  j 


£40  letter  XVlll. 

feut  Episcopacy  has  been  proved  to  accord  perfectly 
with  these  marks,  and,  therefore,  it  is  of  Apostolic- 
institution. 

If  Episcopacy  were  merely  a  point  of  opinion,', 
and  not  a  matter  of  fact,  which  was  calculated  to 
inflame  the  passions,  and  produce  animosity  and 
contention,  I  should  not  think  it  reasonable  to  call 
upon  our  opponents  to  point  out  the  time,  even 
within  half  a  century,  when  it  took  its  rise.  Opi- 
nions creep  in  the  dark  for  some  time,  and  are  not 
immediately  noticed  ;  but  great  revolutions,  either 
in  church  or  state,  are  always  the  prominent  objects 
of.  history.  The  historian  seizes  upon  them  with 
avidity,  dwells  upon  them  minutely,  and  paints 
them  in  strong  and  vivid  colours.  But  the  change 
from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy  was  conducted  with 
all  the  silence  of  the  grave  ;  no  historian  recording, 
it,  no  mortal  perceiving  it.  Yet  our  opponents  talk 
with  as  much  confidence  of  a  change,  as  if  they 
could  produce  history  in  abundance  to  warrant  their 
assertion;  as  if  they  could  give  us  the  place  zvherey 
or  the  year  when,  it  made  its  appearance.  But  when 
pressed  upon  this  point,  why  then,  to  be  sure,  they 
beg  to  be  excused ;  and  gravely  tell -us*  that  there 
are  certain  opinions,  and  certain  practices^  the  date 
of  which  cannot  be  ascertained ;  and  this  they 
think  is  a  set-off  to  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for 
a  change,  which,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  primi- 
tive church,  was  morally  impossible. 

JBut  if  the  case  o£  infant  communion  will  not 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         14I- 

meet  that  of  Episcopacy,  perhaps  it  may  be  met  by 
the  difficulty  of  assigning  a  period  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  Metropolitans.  Here,  Sir,  you  will  find  no 
relief  from  your  embarrassment.  This  case,  if  pos- 
sible, is  worse  than  the  last.  There  is  no  difficulty 
in  determining  when  Metropolitans  were  introduced 
into  the  church.  "That  primacy  commenced," 
(says  Dr.  Cave* J  "  not  long  after  the  Apostolic 
age,  when  sects  and  schisms  broke  in  apace,  and 
controversies  multiplying  between  particular  Bi- 
shops, it  was  found  necessary  to  pitch  upon  one  in 
every  province,  to  whom  the  umpirage  of  cases 
might  be  referred,  and  by  whom  all  common  and 
public  affairs  might  be  directed."  With  this,  as  to- 
time,  Bingham  agrees,  adding — "  Perhaps  it  [the 
office  of  Metropolitan]  took  its  rise  from  that  com- 
mon respect  and  deference,  which  was  usually  paid 
by  the  rest  of  the  Bishops,  to  the  Bishop  of  the 
civil  metropolis  in  every  province  ;  which  advanc- 
ing into  a  custom,  was  afterwards  made  into  a 
canon  by  the  council  of  Nice"^ 

Bingham  gives  sufficient  evidence  of  the  rise  of 
Metropolitans  in  the  second  century.  He  observes, 
that "  Lyons,  in  France,  was  -a  metropolis  in  the  civil 
account ;  and  L-eneus,  who  was  Bishop  of  it,  is  said 
to  have  the  superintendency  of  the  Galican  Par  cedes, 
or  dioceses,  as  Eusebius  words  it.    Philip,  Bishop 


*  Annals  of  Church  Government,  p.  92. 

t  Antiquities,  vol.  i,  p.  185, 186,  octavo  edition 


142  Letter  XVIII. 

of  Gortyna,  in  Crete,  is  styled  by  Dionysius  of  Cg* 
rinth,  Bishop  of  all  the  Cretian  churches.  Poly- 
crates,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  presided  in  council  over 
all  the  Bishops  of  Asia;  Palma,  of  Atnastris,  over 
the  Bishops  of  Pontus  ;  and  Theophilus,  of  Caesar ea^ 
with  Narcissus  of  Jerusalem,  over  the  rest  of  the 
Bishops  of  Palestine" 

"  It  is  true  (continues  Bingham)  none  of  these 
are  expressly  called  Metropolitans ;  for  that  name 
scarcely  occurs  in  any  ancient  record  before  the 
council  of  Nice ;  but  they  were  at  first  wpuTu,  and 
xi$x\ocl,  chief  Bishops,  and  heads  of  the  province, 
as  the  Apostolical  canon  styles  them.  After  ages 
gave  them  other  names,  as  that  of  Archbishops,  at 
Alexandria,  and  other  places,  till  that  name  became 
appropriate  to  the  Patriarchs." 

Thus  you  see,  Sir,  there  is  not  the  least  difficulty 
in  determining  when  Primates,  or  Metropolitans, 
took  their  rise  in  the  Christian  church  ;  and,  there- 
fore, you  cannot  derive  the  least  degree  of  relief 
from  this  quarter. 

But,  Sir,  if  it  were  even  impossible  to  determine 
the  century  when  Metropolitans  first  appeared  in 
the  church,  still  there  would  be  no  parallel  between 
this  difficulty,  and  the  one  relating  to  Episcopacy.. 
There  was  no  usurpation  of  power,  (as  you  assert) 
by  that  order  of  Bishops.  It  was  a  Presidency  per- 
fectly natural,  because  expedient,  nay,  necessary. 
When,  in  the  second  century,  Bishops  were  multi- 
plied inconsequence  of  the  diffusion  of  Christianity, 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy*         143 

those  who  resided  in  the  same  Province  frequently 
met  in  council,  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the 
affairs  of  their  churches.  A  council,  for  the  sake 
of  order,  requires  a  president ;  and  the  election  of 
that  officer  would  most  commonly  fall  upon  the  Bi- 
shop of  the  metropolis,  who,  from  the  wealth  and 
number  of  his  congregations,  would  naturally  ac- 
quire (all  other  circumstances  being  equal)  a  supe- 
rior degree  of  consequence.  This  was,  in  fact,  the 
case  j  for  we  find,  in  the  history  of  the  church,  that 
the  Bishops  of  Rome,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and 
Alexandria,  were  the  first  Presidents,  or  Metropo- 
litans, in  the  Christian  church.  There  was  no  usur- 
pation in  this  ;  it  was  a  matter  of  choice  ;  a  matter 
of  necessity,  after  provincial  councils  took  their 
rise.  We,  therefore,  hear  no  complaints  about  it  in 
the  second  and  third  centuries  ;  for  what  was  the 
wish  of  all,  could  give  offence  to  none. 

Further,  the  Metropolitical  power,  which  was  very 
small,  till  after  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  did 
not  deprive  other  Bishops  of  any  rights  belonging  to 
their  office  ;  consequently,  there  was  nothing  to 
excite  resentment  and  opposition.  The  Bishops 
retained  in  the  highest  degree,  and  most  complete 
security,  their  right  of  ordaining  and  confirming, 
and  their  supremacy  of  jurisdiction  within  their 
dioceses.  What  then  was  there  in  this  measure  of 
expediency,  which  can,  without  a  prostitution  of 
language,  be  called  usurpation  ?  Or  what  kind  of 
parallel  can  there  be  between  the  rise  of  Metropoli- 


144  Letter  XVIIL 

tans,  and  the  rise  of  Episcopacy,  when  the  time  of 
the  former  can  be  named,  and  the  reasons  of  the 
appointment  assigned  ;  and  when  the  time  of  the 
latter  cannot  be  named,  and  no  reason,  no  motive 
which  influences  the  human  mind  can  be  assigned  ? 
— Surely  none. 

And  here,  I  would  just  remark  by  the  way,  that 
this  appointment  of  Metropolitans,  or  Primi  inter 
pares,  is  a  convincing  proof  of  the  existence  of 
Bishops  at  that  time  ;  not  congregational,  but  dio- 
cesan Bishops ;  for  those  standing  Presidents  con- 
voked none  but  Bishops  to  meet  in  councils  ;  and 
Presbyters  were  excluded  from  them  as  members  ; 
unless  perhaps  they  happened  to  represent  their 
absent  Bishops. 

But,  Sir,  although  you  have  been  extremely  un- 
fortunate in  adducing  these  two  instances  to  get  rid 
of  a  pressing  difficulty,  yet  perhaps  your  next  in- 
stance will  serve  you  better.  You  inform  us  that, 
"  closely  connected  with  the  introduction  of  Arch- 
bishops, and  other  grades  in  the  Episcopal  office,  is 
the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Papacy.  It  is  certain, 
that  the  anti-christian  claims  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
were  begun  before  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
The  writings  of  Ireneus  and  Tertullian  both  furnish 
abundant  evidence  of  this  fact.  Yet,  the  records 
of  antiquity  give  so  little  information,  respecting 
the  various  steps  by  which  this  man  of  sin  rose  to 
the  possession  of  his  power  ;  they  contain  so  little 
evidence  of  any  efficient  opposition  to  his  claims^ 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.  145 

and  represent  the  submission  of  the  other  Bishops 
as  being  so  early  and  general,  that  the  Papists  at- 
tempt, from  these  circumstances,  to  prove  the  di- 
vine origin  of  their  system." 

Here  is,  I  think,  abundance  of  error ;  but  happily 
it  will  not  take  many  pages  to  expose  it. 

In  order  to  understand  one  another  upon  this 
point,  I  would  ask,  what  do  you  mean  by  the  Pa- 
pacy ?  Do  you  mean  the  temporal  power  of  the 
Pope,  or  his  claim  of  universal  supremacy  over  the 
Christian  church  ?  I  presume  it  is  the  latter  ;  be- 
cause the  former  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Pope  ;  many 
Bishops  holding  with  their  ecclesiastical,  princely 
powers.  It  seems  then,  according  to  your  statement, 
that  we  do  not  know  when  this  claim  of  supremacy 
was  first  advanced,  and  when  it  was  first  allowed. 
I  cannot  acquiesce  in  this.  I  find  no  difficulty  at 
all  in  determining  these  points.  Boniface  the  third, 
in  the  seventh  century,  was  the  first  Bishop  of 
Rome  who  claimed  the  title  of  oecumenical,  or  uni- 
versal Bishop.*  This  tide  was  indeed  claimed 
but  a  few  years  before,  by  John,  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople. This  arrogance  was  resented  by  Gre- 
gory the  Great,  who  was  contemporary  with  John, 
in  the  most  marked  terms  of  reprobation.  He 
says,  that  whoever  arrogates  to  himself  this  title, 
outstrips  a?iti-Christ.-\    Here  then  is  positive  proof, 

*  Barronius,  An.  Eccles.  vol.  viii.  p  198.  Anastasius  De 
Vjtis  Pont.  Rom.  vol.  i.  p.  117,  and  Mosheim. 

t  Ego  audentem  fidenter  dico,  quod  quisquis  se  universalem 
sacerdotem  vocat,  vel  vocari  desiderat,   in  elaticne  sua,  ami- 

Vol.  U.  O 


146  Letter  XVIII. 

that  the  claim  of  supremacy  was  not  known  in 
the  Christian  Church  till  the  seventh  century. 
Thus,  Sir,  we  have  settled  one  point ;  the  other 
is,  to  determine  when  this  claim  was  granted,  and 
carried  into  effect.  And  this  point  is  as  easily 
settled  as  the  former.  The  cruel  usurper,  Phocas, 
who  murdered  his  master,  Mauritius,  granted  this 
title  to  Boniface*  Soon  after  the  Pope  began  to  carry 
mto  effect  this  supremacy.  He  convened  a  synod 
of  seventy-two  Bishops,  thirty  Presbyters,  and 
three  Deacons,  who  decreed  that  no  election  of  a 
Bishop  should  be  deemed  legal,  unless  ratified  by 
the  Pope  in  these  words^-vS'ic  volumus  et  jubemusf* 

There  is  not,  before  the  seventh  century,  the  least 
trace  of  any  system  of  policy  in  the  Holy  See  to  es*- 
tablish  its  claim  of  superiority  over  other  Bishops. 
There  was,  indeed,  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  an  un- 
due stretch  of  power  by  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome  ; 
but  it  was  treated  with  the  utmost  contempt  by  the 
other  Bishops,  and  particularly  by  Cyprian,  who,  on 
that  occasion,  declared,  "  there  is  no  Bishop  of  Bi- 
shops" in  Christ's  Church.  But  any  thing  like  Pa- 
pal supremacy  was  not  known  till  the  period  which 
I  have  assigned  to  it. 

The  famous  forgery  of  the  donation  of  Italy  to 
Pope  Sylvester,  by  Constantine  the  Great,  forms 
another  remarkable  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  Pa- 

christum  praecurrit,  quia  superbiendo  se  ceteris  praeponit.  Greg. 
Op.  1.  vi.  Ep.  50. 
*  Platina,  p.  60.    Vitas  Pont. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.  147 

pal  usurpation.  This  forgery,  which  contributed-so 
much  to  the  extension-  of  the  power  of  the  "  man  of 
sin,"  was  never  suspected  till  the  twelfth  century, 
when  a  hint  to  that  purpose  was  dropped  in  a  Sabine 
monastery.  But  it  was  left  for  the  bold  and  mas- 
terly pen  of  Laurentius  Valla  to  unmask  the  impos- 
ture, and  expose  it  to  the  world  in  all  its  deformity. 
To  this  forgery,  the  Popes  awed  much  of  their 
civil  authority,  and  as  that  increased,  their  ecclesi- 
astical power  increased  with  it. 

It  would  extend  the  discussion  upon  this  point  to 
too  great  a  length,  were  I  to  go  on  marking  the  se- 
veral epochs  of  the  increasing  power  of  the  Popes  ; 
but  this  has  been  done  by  so  many  able  writers,  that 
whoever  wishes  to  be  well  informed  upon  this  sub- 
ject, can  be  at  no  loss  for  sources  of  information. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  disprove  your  assertion, 
that  we  know  not  the  time  when  the  Papacy  came 
into  being.  Nay,  Sir,  we  know  the  time  when  all 
the  leading  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome  were 
broached.  The  present  subject  does  not  require 
me  to  enter  upon  a  detail  of  this  kind  ;  but  I  stand 
ready  to  do  it  whenever  it  shall  become  necessarv. 

You  inform  us,  Sir,  that "  the  anti-christian  claims 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  were  begun  before  the  close 
of  the  second  century  ;"  and  that  u  the  writings 
of  Ireneus  and  Tertuilian  furnish  abundant  evi- 
dence of  the  fact.7'  This,  Sir,  is  very  vague.  You 
should  have  informed  us  what  you  mean  by  "  anti- 
christian  claims."    It  may  be  true,  and  yet  amount 


148  Letter  XVIII. 

to  very  little.  I  believe  I  could  give  proof  enough 
of  other  Bishops  doing  the  same  thing ;  and  what 
is  more,  I  can  give  abundant  proof,  that  Presbyters 
and  Deacons,  and  even  hymen,  asserted  "  anti- 
christian  claims."  But  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
claimed,  in  the  second  century,  supremacy  over  all 
other  Bishops,  I  utterly  deny,  and  call  upon  you  to 
.give  us  the  proof.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  notorious 
fact,  that  the  church  of  Rome  was,  for  the  first 
three  centuries,  as  pure  as  any  church  then  upon 
earth.  She  maintained  in  a  high  degree,  the  unity 
of  the  faith,  in  the  bond  of  peace. 

Neither,  Sir,  have  you  given  us  any  quotations 
from  the  above  named  Fathers.  Perhaps  that  would 
have  entirely  spoiled  your  assertion.  We  should 
have  then  known  the  extent  of  those  "  anti-christian 
claims."  Your  intimation  of  something  like  Papa- 
cy might  then  appear  to  be  nothing  like  it;  and 
that  would  have  entirely  defeated  the  policy,  which 
just  gives  a  glimpse  of  something  wrong,  and  leaves 
it  to  the  reader's  imagination  to  make  out  the  worst. 
This  will  do  very  well  in  some  species  of  composi- 
tion ;  but  in  letters,  which  profess  to  give  a  correct 
view  of  the  Christian  Church,  such  management  is 
very  censurable. 

At  the  time  that  you  committed  to  paper  the  as- 
sertion, that  "  the  anti-christian  claims  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  were  begun  before  the  close  of  the  second 
century,"  I  wonder,  Sir,  that  you  did  not  perceive 
that  you  were  destroying  your  own  hypothesis,    You 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.  149 

say,  it  is  as  difficult  to  trace  the  rise  and  progress 
of  Papacy  as  of  Episcopacy.  Yet,  you  assure  ur. 
that  the  former  took  its  rise  in  the  second  century » 
and  your  authorities  for  this  assertion  are  brtneus 
and  Tertullian.  But  neither  you,  nor  any  body 
else,  can  tell  us  the  century  when  Episcopacy  be- 
gan ;  and  yet,  it  seems,  that  being  able  to  ascertain 
the  one,  and  unable  to  ascertain  the  other,  amounts 
precisely  to  the  same  thing.  Happy  inconsistency, 
which  affords  a  man  such  decisive  proof! 

Another  unlucky  circumstance  attends  you,  Sir. 
You  name  authorities  for  the  rise  of  Papacy  ;  but 
no  mortal  ever  yet  attempted  to  produce  one  writer 
who  says,  that  Episcopacy  took  its  rise  in  any  age 
short  of  the  Apostolic.  Yet,  no  doubt,  this  im- 
portant difference  makfs  the  two  cases  perfectly 
similar*. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  to  show,  that  the  rise 
and  progress  of  Popery  can,  in  every  thing  mate- 
rial, be  easily  traced  ;  but  the  rise  of  Episcopacy, 
upon  Presbyterian  principles,  still  remains  involved 
in  impenetrable  darkness.  Not  one  ray  of  light  has 
as  yet  been  thrown  upon  this  point,  by  the  ablest 
advocates  of  parity.  This  is  evident  from  their 
being  so  completely  at  variance  among,  themselves, 
when  they  attempt  to  assign  any  period  of  time  for 
the  birth  of  Episcopacy.  This  could  never  be  the 
case,  were  there  any  footsteps  of  parity  in  the  pri- 
mitive church. 

You  go  on.  Sir,  to  other  examples,  in  the  same 
02 


ISO  Letter  XVIII. 

inconsequential  manner.  You  say,  "  Scarcely  less 
remarkable,  or  in  itself  improbable,  was  the  change 
which  early  took  place  in  the  mode  of  electing'  and 
installing  the  Pastors  of  the  church.  You  have 
been  informed,  in  preceding  parts  of  this  work,  that, 
as  each  Bishop,  in  the  primitive  church,  was  the 
Pastor  of  a  single  congregation  j  so  even'  Bishop 
was  elected  by  the  people  of  his  charge,  and  ordain- 
ed to  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  their  presence* 
It  is  certain,  however,  that  at  least  as  early  as  the 
fourth  century,  this  power  of  electing  their  own 
Bishops  began  to  be  gradually  taken  away  from  the 
people ;  and  that,  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  cen- 
turies afterwards,  the  privilege  was  almost  wholly 
withdrawn  from  them.  But  how  came  a  right  so 
popular,  and  so  highly  prized,  to  be  tamely  surren- 
dered ?  And  why  is  it  that  the  records  of  antiquity 
furnish  so  little  information  on  this  subject  1  &c* 

Here  is  a  great  deal  said,  but  nothing  proved* 
You  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  people  elected  their 
Bishops  for  the  first  three  centuries.  But  would  it 
not,  Sir,  be  better  to  prove  this  by  competent  testi- 
mony ?  What  evidence  is  there  that,  in  the  first 
century,  Bishops  or  Presbyters  were  elected  by  the 
people  ?  None  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  evident 
from  the  New  Testament,  that  they  were  elected  by 
rhe  Apostles,  and  that  the  people  had  no  voice  in 
the  business.    There  is  not  a  single  instance  that 

*  Page  099. 


Rise  and  Prog  ress  of  Episcopacy*         I  St 

can  be  produced  in  opposition  to  this  assertion. 
Does  Clemens  Romanus  intimate   that  the   people 
elected  Bishops  ?     Quite  the  contrary,  as  you  very 
well  know.      He   expressly  asserts,  that  Bishops 
and  Deacons  were  designated  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
for  their  respective  offices  ?     Does  Barnabas  coun- 
tenance your  assertion?    He  has  not  a  syllable  upon 
the  subject.   Does  Hernias?  He  also  is  silent.   Does 
Ignatius?    Very  far  from  it-    Does  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, or  IreneuSy  or  Tertvllian,  or  Clemens  of  Alex- 
andria ?     No  testimony  ever  has  been,  or  can  be 
produced  to  this  purpose.    Here  then  are  two  centu- 
ries, from  which  not  a  tittle  can  be  drawn  to  coun- 
tenance your  assertion.    But  perhaps  the  third  cen- 
tury will  furnish  you  with  sufficient  evidence  of  this 
fact.     But  what,  Sir,  if  it  should  ?    That  would  not 
prove,  that  the  people  elected  their  Bishops  in  the 
first  and  second  centuries.     In  the  first,  as  we  have 
seen,  there  is  positive  evidence  against  it ;  and  in 
the  second,  there  is  no  evidence  for  it.     Well  then, 
if  this  practice  began  in  the  third  century  (for  we 
have  no  right  to  say  that  it  began  sooner)  and  was 
abolished  in  the  fourth,  as  you  intimate,  we  have  a 
period  assigned  for  its  rise,  its  progress,  and  its 
abolition.    Consequently,  this  is  not  a  case  that  will 
^erve  for  an  offset  to  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for 
the  rise  of  Episcopacy. 

Were  I,  Sir,  to  rest  the  matter  here,  it  would 
completelv  defeat  your  view,  in  asserting  that  Bi- 
shops were  elected  by  the  people  till  the  fourth 


152  Letter  XVIII. 

century.  But  I  will  give  you  one  passage  from  St# 
Cyprian,  which  shows  what  was  the  general  prac- 
tice of  the  African  churches  in  electing  a  Bishop. 
In  his  sixty-eighth  epistle  he  says,  "  It  is  the  cus- 
tom throughout  almost  all  the  provinces  for  the 
neighbouring  Bishops  to  meet  together,  and  choose 
a  Bishop  in  the  presence  of  the  people,  who  know 
his  "life  and  conversation ;  which  was  done  at  the 
ordination  of  SabinmT  Bishop  of  Emerita,  in  Spain, 
who  was  ordained  to  that  dignity  by  the  suffrage  of 
the  people,  and  the  decision  or  judgment  of  the 
Bishops" — §>uod  factum  videmus  in  Sabini  ordina- 
tione  ut  de  universes  fraternitatis  suffragio,  et  de 
Episcoporum  judicio  episcopatus  ei  deferretur.  Cy- 
prian generally  uses  the  word  suffrage  for  approba- 
tion, likifig;  but  not  for  polling,  or  voting.  Of  this 
I  will  give  two  instances  out  of  many  which  might 
be  quoted.  In  his  tract  De  Zelo  et  Livore,  he  says, 
when  the  people  saw  David  slay  Goliah,  "  they 
broke  forth  into  praises  of  David  with  suffrage  of 
applause."  There  certainly  was  no  voting  on  that 
occasion.  In  his  treatise  De  Vanitate  Idolorum,  he 
says,  that  the  Jews  delivered  up  our  Saviour  to 
Pontius  Pilate,"  requesting  his-death  by  violent  and 
pertinacious  suffrages" — Mortem  suffragiis  violentie 
et  pertinacibus  flagitantes.  This  expresses  the  vio- 
lent desire  of  the  Jews  to  see  Jesus  put  to  death, 
but  no  more  than  desire,  and  approbation  ;  for  they 
had  at  that  time,  no  power  to  put  any  man  to 
death.     If  you  wish  to  see  instances  of  this  kind . 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         ISo 

multiplied,  and  the  point  clearly  proved,  that  the 
people  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  election  of  a  Bi- 
shop, but  barely  gave  their  testimony  to  his  charac- 
ter, please  to  consult  Slater's  Original  Draught,  and 
Sage's  Cyprianic  Age  vindicated* 

Let  me  also  remind  you,  Sir,  of  St.  Jerome's 
testimony  to  this  point.  "  At  Alexandria  (says  he) 
from  Mark  the  Evangelist  to  Heraclas  and  Diony- 
sius'  Episcopate  (that  is,  in  the  third  century),  the 
Presbyters  always  nominated  one  their  Bishop, 
chosen  from  among  themselves." 

It  appears  then  from  the  New-Testament,  that 
the  people  did  not  claim  any  right  to  elect  their  Bi- 
shops, but  that  the  Apostles  always  nominated 
them,  as  St.  Paul  did  Timothy  and  Titus;  and 
from  Clemens  Romanus,  that  the  Apostles  went 
through  cities  and  regions  ordaining  Bishops, 
who  were  designated  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  it 
does  not  appear  from  any  records  of  the  second 
century,  that  the  people  ever  exercised  or  claimed 
that  right.  It  also  appears  from:  Cyprian  and 
Jerome,  that  elections  were  conducted  in  a  different 
manner,  in  the  third  centurjv  About  the  close  of 
this  century,  I  believe,  the  people  of 'Rome  acquired 
great  influence  in  the  election  of  their  Bishops; 
but  they  exercised  it  in  such  a  tumultuous  and 
scandalous  manner,  that  Constantine,  after  he  be- 
came a  Christian,  found  it  necessary  to  prevent  them 
from  interfering  in  elections.  As  there  was  no 
rule  prescribed  by  the  Apostles,  with  respect  to 


*54  Letter  XVIlL 

elections,  there  was  some  diversity  of  practice  m 
different  churches ;  but  that  Bishops,  and  Pres- 
byters, and  Deacons,  were  elected  by  the  people 
in  the  first  three  centuries,  is  very  far  from  being 
correct.  This  case,  therefore,  is  totally  irrelevant 
to  the  point  you  wish  to  establish. 

Further :  If  it  were  even  as  you  say,  that  the 
people  elected  their  Bishops  till  the  fourth  century, 
how  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  can  this  be 
considered  as  presenting  a  difficulty  equal  to  that 
of  accounting  for  the  rise  of  Episcopacy  ?  How 
do  you  know,  Sir,  that  the  people  elected  their 
Bishops?  It  must  be,  if  at  all,  from  records. 
Here  then  the  cases  are  totally  dissimilar.  You 
consider  the  evidence  for  the  people's  electing  their 
Bishops  clear  enough ;  but  with  respect  to  Episco- 
pacy, you  acknowledge  that  its  birth  cannot  be 
traced.  And  with  respect  to  the  abolition  of  popular 
election,  you  say  it  began  to  take  place  in  the  fourth 
century.  So  then,  a  thing  which  is  clear,  is  as  dif- 
ficult to  be  known  as  that  which  is  involved  in  mid- 
night darkness.     Pray,  Sir,  what  do  you  call  this  ? 

As  to  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for  the  people's 
so  "  tamely  surrendering  a  right  so  highly  prized," 
which  you  seem  to  think  equal  to  the  difficulty  of 
accounting  for  the  Presbyters  resigning  the  power 
©f  ordination,  you  should  first  have  proved  that  the 
Christian  laity  generally  exercised  that  right,  as  you 
are  pleased  to  call  it ;  but  if  you  had  proved  it, 
still  the  two  cases  would  be  totally  dissimilar  j  fcr 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         155 

whenever  popular  elections  were  abolished,  it  was 
done  by  the  civil  power,  which  the  people  could  not 
resist ;  but  no  Presbyterian  writer  has  ever  hinted, 
that  the  right  of  ordination  was  taken  from  the 
Presbyters  by  the  c'wil  authority.  The  exercise  of 
that  right,  almost  all  our  opponents  acknowledge, 
ceased  long  before  the  conversion  of  Constantine. 
The  difficulty  then  still  continues  in  full  force 
against  you. 

The  next  thing  you  mention  as  presenting  a  dif- 
ficulty equal  to  the  rise  of  Episcopacy,  is  the  abo- 
lition of  the  office  of  Ruling'  Elder.  I  flatter  myself 
that  I  have  fully  proved,  in  my  eighth  letter,  that 
there  never  was  any  such  officer  in  the  Christian 
church,  till  the  time  of  Calvin.  That  it  is  a  mere 
human  institution,  a  great  part,  if  not  the  greater 
part  of  Presbyterians  themselves  acknowledge ;  and 
that  nine  tenths  of  the  Christian  world  are  against 
the  office,  is  beyond  all  controversy.  You  must, 
Sir,  have  very  strong  reinforcements,  to  be  able  to 
stand  your  ground  upon  this  point. 

Your  list  of  difficulties  increase  fast  upon  us. 
You  gravely  inform  us,  that  we  cannot  tell  when 
Sub-deacons^  Acolyths,  and  Exorcists  were  intro- 
duced into  the  church ;  and  your  inference  from 
this  must  be,  that  we  ought  not  to  urge  the  diffi- 
culty of  accounting  for  the  rise  of  Episcopacy, 
when  we  cannot  ascertain  the  time  when  these  dig- 
nified officers  were  first  created. 

Upon  reading  this,    the    correctness  of  Lord 


156  Letter  XVIII. 

Kaimes>  definition  of  the  ridiculous,  forcibly  struck 
me.  He  says,  it  is  that  "  which  excites  laughter 
blended  with  contempt."*  Sub-deacons,  Acolyths, 
and  Exorcists!  Why  did  you  not  add,  Sextons, 
Porters,  Bell-ringers,  and  Grave-diggers?  Surely, 
Sir,  you  must  take  your  readers  for  children,  when 
you  suppose  that  they  will  believe,  that  the  intro- 
duction of  the  first  named  officers  was  u  calculated 
to  interest  the  feelings  both  of  the  clergy  and  of  the 
people,  and  to  excite  long  and  violent  opposition 
from  various  quarters."  What  was  there  in  the 
office  of  a  Sub-deacon  to  excite  opposition  ?  That 
officer  prepared  the  sacred  vessels  and  utensils  of 
the  altar,  and  delivered  them  to  the  Deacons  in 
time  of  divine  service.  He  attended  the  church 
doors  during  the  time  of  the  communion  service  ; 
and  he  went  on  the  Bishop's  embassies,  with  his 
letters  to  foreign  churches.  Was  this  an  office  of 
so  much  consequence,  as  to  excite  commotions  in 
the  church,  upon  its  introduction?  No  one  can 
seriously  say,  it  was. 

The  Acolyths  were  an  order  peculiar  to  the  Latin 
church,  and  quite  unknown  to  the  Greek  for  four 
hundred  years.  It  appears  from  a  canon  in  the 
fourth  council  of  Carthage,  that  their  office  was 
to  light  the  candles,  snuff  them,  furnish  the  wine 
for  the  sacrament,  and  attend  the  Bishop.  Do 
you  seriously  think,  Sir,  that  appointing  candle 

*  El.  Crit.  vol.  i.  p.  221. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy*  157 

snuffers  was  calculated  to  produce  commotions  in 
the  church?  Sir,  I  am  ashamed  of  this;  it  is  really 
too  bad ;  far,  far  too  low  and  ridiculous  to  come 
from  your  pen. 

Exorcists  began  with  Christianity  itself.  In  the 
Apostolic  age,  all  orders  of  the  clergy,  and  even 
laymen  cast  out  devils,  and  this  continued  to  be  the 
case  till  miracles  ceased,  which  was  not  till  the 
persecutions  of  the  Christians  ceased.  This  has 
been  abundantly  proved  by  several  writers.  When 
this  miraculous  power  of  casting  out  devils  ceased, 
which  was  at  different  times  in  different  situations, 
the  order  of  Exorcists  was  instituted,  and  this  we 
know  was  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century ; 
for  Cyprian  mentions  this  order,  and  I  cannot  find 
any  before  him  that  does.  The  duties  of  this  office 
were  to  pray,  both  in  private  and  public,  for  the  En- 
crgwnens,  or  those  who  were  supposed  to  be  pos- 
sessed of  the  devil,  to  keep  them  always  employed 
in  some  innocent  business,  and  to  see  them  pro- 
vided with  daily  food.  This  was  a  humane  ofRce  ; 
but  it  was  strongly  tinctured  with  superstition. — 
All  these  inferior  orders  are  found  in  the  church  in 
the  third  century. 

When  a  writer  can  prevail  on  himself  to  give  the 
most  distant  hint,  that  the  difficulty  of  determining 
the  time  when  these  petty,  servile  offices  were  in- 
troduced into  the  church  (even  if  that  were  true) 
is  as  great  as  the  difficulty  of  determining  the  sera 

Vol.  II.  P 


158  .  Letter  XVIII. 

of  Episcopacy,  it  must  excite  strong  suspicion,  that 
all  is  not  right  in  some  quarter  or  other. 

In  reviewing  your  eighth  letter,  I  have  thought 
it  best  to  settle  this  point,  although  not  in  the  order 
you  observe,  before  I  consider  whether  it  was 
morally  possible  for  so  great  a  revolution  to  take 
place  in  so  short  a  time  ;  and  whether,  if  it  were, 
we  should  not  have  some  notice  of  it  in  the  records 
of  the  church.  Let  us  give  these  points  a  fair  dis- 
cussion. 

The  point  of  time  that  I  shall  take  for  this  sup- 
posed revolution,  is  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, because  I  am  warranted  by  the  concessions 
^f  your  ablest  writers  to  do  so.  The  assembly  of 
Presbyterian  divines  in  their  yus.  Divin.  Minis, 
Ang.  p.  104,  have  this  question, — "  How  long  was 
it,  that  the  church  of  Christ  was  governed  by  the 
common  council  of  Presbyters,  without  a  Bishop 
set  over  them  ?  A.  Dr.  Blondel,  a  man  of  great 
reading  and  learning,  undertakes,  in  a  long  dis- 
course, to  make  out  that  before  the  year  140,  there 
was  not  a  Bishop  over  Presbyters."  This  gives 
us  the  opinion  of  the  English  Presbyterian  divines, 
and  it  differs  very  materially  from  yours,  as  to  the 
point  of  time  when  Episcopacy  is  supposed  to  have 
been  introduced.  Chamier,  a  Protestant  divine  of 
the  French  church,  says,  that  "  inequality  (of  Bi- 
shops and  Presbyters)  was  very  ancient,  and  near 
the  times  of  the  Apostles.    Nay,  that  it  took  place, 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy*  159 

the  first  age  having  not  yet,  or  scarcely  elapsed."* 
Now  one  of  the  Apostles,  St.  John,  out-lived  the 
first  age,  dying  at  Ephesus,  A.  D.  101.  Salmashis 
says  in  his  book  called  IValo  Messalinus,  chap.  iv. 
u  About  the  beginning,  or  middle  of  the  second  age, 
the  first  Bishops  were  placed  over  the  Presbytery."" 
Another  divine  of  the  same  church,  Du  Moulin, 
candidly  acknowledges,  that  u  Episcopacy  was  an 
Apostolic  institution,  and  whatever  name  we  may 
give  Timothy  and  Titus,  whether  that  of  Bishops 
or  Evangelists,  it  is  manifest  that  they  had  Epis- 
copal successors,  who  enjoyed  their  pre-eminence. "f 
Bucer,  a  divine  of  the  Swiss  church,  acknowledges 
that,  u  even  irvthe  times  of  the  Apostles  themselves, 
one  of  the  Presbyters  was  chosen  and  ordained  to 
be  a  guide,  and,  as  it  were,  a  Prelate,  who  went 
before  all  the  rest,  and  had  the  care  of  souls,  and 
administered  the  Episcopal  office,  chiefly  and  in  the 
highest  degree."J  With  Bucer  agrees  Cabin,  in 
his  comment  on  Titus  i.  5.  "  At  that  time  (ot 
Timothy  J  there  was  no  equality  among  the  minis- 
ters of  the  church,  but  some  one  in  authority  and 
council  had  the  pre-eminence."j!  Baxter,  Le  Clerc, 
and  Doddridge,  have  been  already  quoted ;  the  trio 
former,  as  placing  the   rise  cf  Episcopacy  in  the 

*  Inseq'.iaiiutem  esse  vctu^tiss'inam  ac  vicinam  Apostcb- 
rum  temporibus.  Aut  non  dum  elapp,  aut  v'.x  elapso  prime 
bsculo. 

t  Ordinem  Episcopalcr::  esse  jur'.s  Apostolic?,  he. 

X   L  b  de  anima.  «- -  .ripsir.     Ar!£  p.  380. 

jj  Ncn  earn  fuisse  tunc  ^ciuaiitateni  inter  etclesi^e  rnifii^'.roT, 
<jimi  ur.us  a!'.f]o;s  authoritate  et  ccnsilio  prws'set. 


160  Letter  XVIII. 

Apostolic  age  ;  the  latter^  as  placing  it  in  the  time 
of  Ignatius, 

From  the  concessions  of  these  learned  men,  I 
proceed  to  demonstrate  the  moral  impossibility  of 
a  change  from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy,  during 
the  second  age  of  the  church,  when  the  civil  arm 
was  stretched  out,  not  to  defend,  but  to  destroy  the 
religion  of  Christ. 

It  is,  Sir,  your  own  acknowledgment,  that  the 
church  continued  pure  till  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  If,  then,  the  change  took  place,  while  the 
clergy  and  people  were  in  a  state  of  purity,  you 
will  have  a  hard  task  indeed,  to  reconcile  a  daring 
and  wicked  usurpation  with  pure  and  virtuous  mo- 
tives. You  will  perhaps  say,  that  you  do  not  at- 
tempt to  reconcile  them  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that 
you  ascribe  the  innovation  to  wicked  ambition, 
which  operated  so  powerfully  in  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth,  or,  at  most,  towards  the  close  of  the 
third  century,  as  to  give  a  new  face  to  the  Christian 
church.  But  let  our  readers  consider  the  great 
weight  of  evidence  I  have  produced  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  third  century,  to  prove  that  Episcopacy 
existed  before  that  age  ;  and,  to  that  let  them  add 
the  acknowledgments  of  many  of  our  ablest  op- 
ponents, that  the  fact  is  incontestible,  and  then  I 
ask,  whether  I  am  not  sufficiently  warranted  to  take 
my  ground  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  ?  I 
certainly  am,  and  shall  accordingly  build  my  reason- 
ing upon  this  concession. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         161 

It  is  a  maxim  in  moral  science,  that  no  man  acts, 
or  can  act,  without  a  motive.  Now,  what  is  the 
motive  that  influenced  a  few  of  the  Presbyters  to 
Attempt  an  assumption  of  superiority  over  their 
brethren?  Was  it  a  desire  of  temporal  power? 
That  was  entirely  out  of  the  question,  without  the 
aid  of  civil  authority.  And  every  one  knows,  that 
kind  of  authority  was  exerted  for  the  destruction  of 
the  church.  Was  it  the  love  of  wealth  ?  None  re- 
sulted from  the  acquisition,  or  could  result  from  it. 
The  people  were  generally  poor,  and  the  Bishops, 
as  well  as  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  were  main- 
tained out  of  the  offerings  at  the  altar ;  and  scanty 
was  the  fare  that  proceeded  from  that  source. 
Was  it  the  love  of  ease  and  security  ?  That  could 
not  be;  for  Episcopal  superiority  greatly  increased 
the  labours  of  the  Bishops,  and  exposed  them  to 
almost  certain  destruction.  u  As  soon  (says  Bishop 
Skinner  J  as  an  edict  passed  for  persecuting  the 
Christians  in  any  part  of  the  church,  the  Bishops 
were  immediately  aimed  at,  as  the  most  guilty  per- 
sons, and  the  first  that  were  exposed  to  the  fury  of 
their  persecutors.  As  their  danger  was  thus  immi- 
nent, their  labour  too  was  often  no  less  severe  ;  for 
upon  them  was  laid  the  principal  care  of  the  flock, 
which  frequently  required  the  greatest  vigilance 
and  attention  in  the  shepherd."*"  If,  then,  neither 
dominion,  nor  wealth,  nor  ease,  nor  security,  could 

*  Answer  tc  Dr.  Campbell's  Lectures,  p  240,  Swards 's  edit 
P2 


162  Letter  XVIII. 

possibly  be  the  motive  for  so  daring  an  attempt,  as 
to  deprive  the  Presbyters  of  their  most  sacred 
rights,  those  ambitious  spirits,  as  you  deem  them, 
must  have  acted  without  any  motive,  which  is  evi- 
dently inconsistent  with  the  very  nature  and  consti- 
tution of  the  human  mind. 

You  seem,  Sir,  to  rest  your  plausible  theory 
upon  the  desire  of  pre-eminence,  which,  you  say 
very  justly,  is  natural  to  man.  You  need  not  have 
quoted  any  instances  from  scripture  to  prove  this. 
It  is  universally  acknowledged — universally  felt. 
But  what  sort  of  pre-eminence  is  it  that  man  so 
much  pants  after  ?  Is  it  temporal  pre-eminence,  that 
is  attended  with  power,  and  wealth,  and  splendor  ? 
Or  is  it  spiritual  pre-eminence,  which,  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  church,  brought  to  the  possessor  none 
of  these  things  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  brought  with- 
it  increased  labour,  and  almost  certain  destruction  ? 
No  one  can  be  at  a  loss  to  determine  which.  A 
little,  brief,  spiritual  authority,  generally  accom- 
panied with  bonds,  and  imprisonment,  and  death, 
in  the  most  horrible  forms,  has  very  few  charms, 
even  to  those,  in  whose  breasts  the  love  of  power 
operates  strongly.  No,  Sir,  it  is  the  love  of  tempo- 
ral pre-eminence  which  so  universally  actuates  hu- 
man nature  ;  which  gratifies  so  highly  the  pride  of 
man.  This  was  the  kind  of  pre-eminence  which 
the  sons  of  Zebedee  requested  from  the  hands  of 
their  master.  They  had  not,  at  the  time  they  made 
this  request,  the  most  distant  conception  of  the 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         163 

spiritual  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom.  They  sup- 
posed that  he  was  to  be  a  temporal  prince,  and  that 
his  kingdom  was  to  be  altogether  of  this  world. 
Hence  their  strife  which  of  them  should  be  ac- 
counted the  greatest.  Had  they  known  that  Christ's 
kingdom  was  not  to  be  of  this  world,  we  should 
not  have  heard  of  any  strife  for  that  pre-eminence, 
which  brought  with  it  greater  labour,  and  exposed 
to  greater  sufferings.  So  different  was  the  pre-emi- 
nence which  the  Apostles  had  in  view,  and  that 
which  was  acquired  by  the  first  Bishops.  The  one 
is  at  all  times  gratifying  to  human  nature ;  the  other, 
under  such  circumstances  as  have  been  mentioned, 
always  forbidding,  and  repulsive.  "  It  would  be 
the  height  of  folly  to  suppose  that  any  Presbyters, 
however  inordinate  their  ambition,  would  seek  dis- 
tinction on  the  rack  and  at  the  stake,  would  usurp - 
stations  where  relentless  persecution  would  inevita- 
bly assail  them."*  No  ;  human  nature  loves  itself 
too  well  for  that  kind  of  distinction.  A  wish  for 
pre-eminence  is  natural,  when  it  brings  its  usual 
gratifications  ;  but  where  is  the  man  that  wishes  it, 
when  it  brings  in  its  train  every  thing  appalling  to 
human  nature  ? 

When  we  thus  examine  the  constitution  of  the 
human  mind,  and  perceive  from  our  own  constant 
and  invariable  experience,  that  man  cannot  possibly 


*  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  208.  This  book  ought  to  be  in  the 
bands  of  every  churchman.  It  contains  abundant  proof  of 
the  divine  origin  of  Episcopacy, 


164  Letter  XVIIL 

act  without  motives ;  and  when  we  take  a  view  of- 
the  circumstances  of  the  primitive  church,  which/ 
for  three  ages,  was  harassed  and  tormented  with 
bloody  persecutions,  it  appears  to  me  impossible, 
to  name  any  thing  like  a  motive  to  attempt  the 
usurpation  of  Episcopal  power.  Even  to  fancy  a 
motive  is  not  very  obvious  ;  but  if  it  were,  men  of 
understanding  will  not  indulge  fancy  at  the  expense 
of  common  sense. 

But  this,  Sir,  although  enough,  is  not  all.  You 
acknowledge,  that  the  church,  till  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  preserved  her  purity.  How  then$ 
consistently  with  this  state  of  things,  could  a  few 
of  her  Presbyters  have  devised  the  wicked  project 
of  depriving  their  brethren  of  their  most  sacred 
rights?  Surely,  men  of  such  distinguished  virtue 
and  piety  as  the  Bishops  of  that  period  are  univer- 
sally acknowledged  to  have  been,  could  not  have 
entertained  a  thought  so  inconsistent  with  a  pure 
conscience,  with  peace  of  mind,  and  with  the  hope 
cf  future  happiness.  Could  men,  who  displayed 
all  the  meekness  and  humility  of  Christians,  have 
attempted  a  plan  of  domination  so  completely  at  va- 
riance with  these  virtues?  Could  men,  who  endured 
every  thing  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  violate  his  sacred 
institution  ?  Could  men,  who,  to  save  themselves 
from  the  most  excruciating  torments,  would  not 
offer  incense  at  the  idol  altars,  deliberately  associate 
for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  a  trimng-  authority 
Over  their  brethren?   What!  cmseimtiw s  m^verj?: 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.        165 

thing  relating  to  Christian  purity,  to  Christian 
manners  ;  and  yet  profligate  as  to  the  constitution 
of  the  Christian  church !  Gross  inconsistency  \ 
Palpable  contradiction !  No,  Sir.  If  there  are  any 
fixed  principles  in  human  nature,  any  motive  of 
human  actions,  any  desire  of  self-preservation,  any 
regard  to  consistency  of  character,  any  fear  of  a 
guilty  conscience,  any  dread  of  future  misery ;  the 
first  Bishops  were  not  usurpers,  but  the  true  and 
legitimate  possessors  of  Apostolical  pre-eminence, 

Furdier  still.  Supposing  this  chimerical  plan  of 
depriving  the  Presbyters  of  those  powers  to  which 
they  were  entitled  by  the  appointment  of  their  Lord 
and  Master,  should  have  entered  into  the  minds  of 
a  few  ambitious  Presbyters,  how,  in  the  name  of 
common  sense,  was  it  to  be  effected?  They  had 
not  the  civil  authority  to  aid  them.  Was  it  done 
by  the  power  of  eloquence  ?  Did  Cicero  and  Demos- 
thenes ever  persuade  men  out  of  their  senses?  Was 
it  possible  for  the  few  usurpers  to  persuade  the 
Presbyters,  and.  Deacons,  and  people,  that  Christ 
left  his  church  under  an  Episcopal  government, 
but  that  by  some  legerdemain  it  was  changed 
into  a  Presbyterian,  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  a 
duty  to  revive  the  primitive  institution?  I  acknow- 
ledge that  these  are  silly  questions  ;  but  I  shelter 
myself  under  the  silliness  of  the  hypothesis  which 
obliges  me  to  ask  them.  If  you  answer  in  the 
affirmative,  they  are  silly  to  excess ;  but  if  in  the 
negative,  they  are  pertinent  and  conclusive. 


166  Letter  XVIII. 

We  have  now  got  a  step  farther.  The  first  Bi- 
shops had  no  conceivable  motive  for  usurping  ec-r 
clesiastical  superiority,  and  they  were  too  virtuous 
and  pious  to  attempt  it ;  but,  if  they  had  attempted 
it,  there  was  no  possibility  of  effecting  it. 

The  latter  assertion  will  appear  with  still  brighter 
evidence,  if  possible,  from  the  following  observa- 
tions. 

The  clergy  and  people  of  the  second  century, 
when  this  extraordinary  revolution  is  supposed  to 
have  taken  place,  knew  as  well  under  what  govern- 
ment the  Apostles  left  the  church,  as  you  or  I 
do,  what  was  the  government  of  our  respective 
churches,  a  hundred  years  ago.  There  was  not  any 
possibility  of  mistake,  or  of  doubt,  about  the  matter; 
Well  then,  what  could  have  induced  the  clergy  and 
people  to  submit  to  an  alteration?  There  must 
have  been  some  reason  for  it.  What  was  it  ?  Were 
they  bought  by  the  first  Bishops  ?  Poor  men ! 
their  office  afforded  them  but  a  scanty  income  for 
themselves  and  their  families.  Were  they  over- 
reached by  subtle  arts,  and  out-witted  by  superior 
talents?  So  you  seem  to  think.  You  inform  us, 
**  that  the  nations  over  which  the  Christian  religion 
was  spread  with  so  much  rapidity,  were  sunk  in 
deplorable  ignorance.  Grossly  illiterate,  very  few 
were  able  to  read  j  and  even  to  these  few,  manu- 
scripts were  of  difficult  access.  At  that  period, 
popular  eloquence  was  the  great  engine  of  persua- 
sion $  and  where  the  character  cf  the  mind  is  not 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         107 

fixed  by  reading,  and  a  consequent  habit  of  atten- 
tive and  accurate  thinking,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
how  deeply  and  suddenly  it  may  be  operated  upon 
by  such  an  engine.  A  people  of  this  description, 
wholly  unaccustomed  to  speculations  and  govern- 
ment j  universally  subjected  to  despotic  rule  in  the 
state  ;  having  no  just  ideas  of  religious  liberty ; 
altogether  unfurnished  with  the  means  of  commu- 
nicating and  uniting  with  each  other,  which  the  art  of 
printing, has  since  afforded  ;  torn  with  dissensions 
among  themselves,  and  liable  to  be  turned  about 
with  every  wind  of  doctrine;  such  a  people  could 
offer  little  resistance  to  those  who  were  ambitious 
of  ecclesiastical  power."* 

This,  Sir,  is  all  very  fine  ;  and  to  those  who 
know  no  better,  I  suppose  very  instructive  and  con- 
vincing. But,  Sir,  if  it  were  even  true,  it  would 
no  more  account  for  the  revolution  from  Presby- 
tery to  Episcopacy,  than  for  the  revolution  of  the 
heavenly  bodies.  Does  it  require  literature  and 
science,  to  enable  men  to  determine  under  what 
kind  of  government  they  have  always  lived  ?  In 
the  stete,  is  it  necessary  for  men  to  be  philosophers 
and  cultivators  of  the  arts,  in  order  to  determine 
whether  they  live  under  a  kingly,  or  republican 
form  of  government  ?  In  the  church,  cannot  they 
tell  whether  they  are  governed  by  Bishops,  or  by 
Presbyters,  acting  with  equal  authority,  unless  they 


168  Letter  XVIIL 

are  learned  ?    Ought  they  not  to  confide  in  what 
they  every  day  see  and  hear,  unless  they  are  ac- 
quainted with  philosophy,  and  mathematics,  and 
political  science?    Surely,  Sir,  if  the  clergy  and 
people  were  ignorant,  and  unenlightened  by  litera- 
ture, still  they  did  not  lose  their  senses,  and  their 
understandings.     If  they  were  unacquainted  with 
books,   still  they  must  have  been  well  acquainted 
with  the  official  characters  of  those,  who,  in  $pi* 
rituals,  ruled  over  them.     Here  there  was  no  pos- 
sibility of  any  mistake.     A  few  learned  men  could 
never  have  made  them  believe,  that  the  church  had 
not  always  been  Presbyterian,  when  thousands  of 
them  must  have  been  born  in  the  Apostolic  age, 
and  have  been  the  children  of  the  earliest  converts 
to  Christianity.     If  Presbytery  had  been  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Apostles,  all  the  Christians  of  the  se- 
cond century  knew  it  well,  and  no  eloquence  could 
ever  have  persuaded  them  to  the  contrary.     Nay, 
Sir,  if  they  were  even  as  ignorant  as  you  represent 
them,  and  much  more  so,  this  very  circumstance 
would  have  made  them  more  tenacious  of  what  they 
deemed  sacred  institutions.     The  history  of  man- 
kind evinces,  that  ignorance  and  obstinacy  are  gene- 
rally united.     The  most  illiterate  and  unpolished 
nations  are  the  most  inveterate  in  their  resentment 
against  those,  who  attempt  to  deprive  them  of  any 
thing  connected  with  religion.     And,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  more  learned  and  scientific  a  nation  is, 
the  more  speculative  and  projecting  it  is.     In  the 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         169 

eyes  of  such  a  people,  old  institutions  are  less  ve- 
nerable than  in  the  eyes  of  an  enlightened  people. 
New  things  captivate  because  they  are  considered 
as  proofs  of  genius ;  and  old  things  tire  and  disgust, 
-because  they  check  genius,  and  circumscribe  talents. 
The  ignorance,  then,  which  you  ascribe  to  the  early 
ages  of  Christianity-,  were  you  even  perfectly  cor- 
rect in  what  you  say,  instead  of  diminishing,  would 
increase  the  difficulties  which  attend  a  supposition 
of  a  change  of  government. 

But,  Sir,  whatever  may  become  of  this  reasoning, 
whether  it  be  thought  conclusive  or  not,  it  is  very 
certain  that  you  have  given  your  readers  a  very 
fanciful  picture  of  the  second  and  third  centuries. 
Literature  was  not  so  low,  nor  ignorance  so  preva- 
lent, as  you  represent  it.  Eloquence  and  poetry 
had  indeed  declined  in  Greece  and  Rome;  but  still 
literature  and  philosophy  were  far  from  being  ex- 
tinguished. The  second  and  third  centuries  fur- 
nished several  good  writers  in  the  Christian  Church 
—Tertullian,  Arnobius,  Irenens,  Clemens  of  Alex* 
andria,  Origen,  Cyprian,  and  several  others.  We 
meet  with  no  complaint  of  a  want  of  knowledge  in 
those  ages,  nor  for  several  ages  following.  There 
was  quite  sufficient  for  every  religious  purpose, 
and  for  preserving  the  unity  of  the  faith  in  the 
bond  of  peace. 

Nor  was  the  second  century,  in  which,  your  best 
writers  fancy  Episcopacy  was  introduced,  in  any 
degree  distinguished  for  contention  and  schism, 

Vol.  If.  Q 


170  .     Letter  XVIII. 

as  you  assert.  Perhaps  there  never  was  a  more 
peaceable  period  of  the  Christian  church.  I  do  not 
recollect  a  single  controversy  that  produced  any 
mischievous  effects.  The  dispute  about  the  time 
of  keeping  Easter  was  the  only  one  of  any  moment ; 
and  that  was  conducted  without  violence,  and  with- 
out schism.  Both  parties  retained  their  own  cus- 
tom till  the  council  of  Nice,  which  happily  termi- 
nated the  dispute. 

And  here  let  me  make  an  observation,  which,  I 
think,  ought  to  carry  conviction  to  every  mind.  If 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches  were  so  tena- 
cious of  such  an  unessential  point,  as  the  time  of 
keeping  a  festival,  that  neither  would  yield  to  the 
other,  how  is  it  possible  to  suppose,  that  all  the 
clergy  and  people  throughout  the  Christian  world, 
would  have  quietly  submitted  to  an  alteration  of 
that  sacred  regimen,  which  Christ  had  established 
in  his  church  ?  And,  further,  how  is  it  possible  to 
suppose,  that  when  we  have  so  minute  an  account 
of  this  controversy,  which  in  itself  was  of  no  ma- 
terial consequence,  we  should  not  have  one  single 
testimony  in  all  antiquity,  that  the  church  was 
changed  from  a  Presbyterian  to  an  Episcopal  regi- 
men ?  This  is  a  wonderful  circumstance.  In  the 
second  and  third  centuries  we  have  detailed  ac- 
counts of  the  progress  of  heresies,  of  schisms,  of 
disputes  between  Bishops,  and  between  Presbyters 
and  Bishops  j  but  not  the  least  hint  of  a  change 
which  deprived  the  Presbyters  of  their  most  sacred 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,  1 71 

rights,  and  which,  therefore,  was  calculated  to 
produce  the  most  violent  convulsions  throughout 
the  Christian  world.  Sir,  I  could  as  easily  be- 
lieve all  the  fictions  of  the  Arabian  Night's  En- 
tertainments, of  Don  £>uixoltc,  of  Gulliver's  Travel V, 
of  Amadis  of  Gaul,  as  believe  this  story.  It  is 
incredible — it  is  unreasonable.  Yet  it  seems  any 
account  of  the  matter  will  do,  when  a  hypothesis 
is  to  be  served  ;  when  those  passions  are  to  be 
consulted,  which  always  entwine  themselves  with 
principles  once  avowed,  and  with  interests  once  es- 
tablished. 

Let  us  now  see  how  you  surmount  all  these  diffi- 
culties. The  consideration  of  this  point  shall  oc- 
cupy the  first  part  of  ray  next  letter  * 


(   ira  ) 


LETTER  XIX 


Rev.  Sir, 

YOUR  manner  of  accounting  for  the  silence  o£ 
the  primitive  writers,  with  respect  to  a  revolution 
in  the  government  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  as 
follows: — u  Nor  is  it  wonderful  that  we  find  so  lit- 
tle said  concerning  those  usurpations  in  the  early 
records  of  antiquity.  There  was  probably  but  lit- 
tle written  on  the  subject ;  since  those  who  were 
most  ambitious  to  shine  as  writers,  were  most  likely 
to  be  forward  in  making  unscriptural  claims  them- 
selves ;  and,  of  course,  would  be  little  disposed  to 
record  their  own  shame.  It  is  likewise  probable, 
that  the  little  that  was  written  on  such  a  subject 
would  be  lost ;  because  the  art  of  printing-  being 
unknown,  and  the  trouble  and  expense  of  multiply- 
ing copies  being  only  incurred  for  the  sake  of  pos- 
sessing interesting"  and  popular  works,  it  was  not 
to  be  expected  that  writings  so  hostile  to  the  ambi- 
tion and  vices  of  the  clergy  would  be  much  read, 
if  it  were  possible  to  suppress  them.  And  when 
to  these  circumstances  we  add,  that  literature,  after 
the  fourth  century,  was  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  ec- 
clesiastics ;  that  many  important  works  written  in 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Epucopccy.         1 73 

the  three  first  centuries,  are  known  to  be  lost ;  and 
that  of  the  few  which  remain,  some  are  acknow- 
ledged on  all  hands  to  have  been  grossly  corrupted, 
and  radically  mutilated,  we  cannot  wonder  that  so 
little  in  explanation  of  the  various  steps  of  clerical 
usurpation  has  reached  our  times.*" 

It  seems  then,  from  this  account,  that  we  are  not 
to  look  for  any  records  of  this  wonderful  usurpa- 
tion ;  because  those  who  were  the  most  capable  of 
writing,  would  be  the  very  men  who  would  most 
probably  have  usurped  Episcopal  pre-eminence;  and 
they  would  not,  you  think,  record  their  own  shame. 
But  were  there  none  who  were  capable  of  writing, 
but  the  comparatively  small  number  of  usurping 
Bishops  ?  Was  the  eloquent  Tertxdhan  one  of  the 
usurpers  ?  Has  not  he  left  various  writings  ?  Has 
he  given  any  hint  about  this  anti-Christian  usurpa- 
tion ?  Would  he  have  recorded  his  own  shame 
by  so  doing?  Nay,  Sir,  has  not  this  Presbyter, 
who  had  ever}'  motive  to  brand  with  infamy  these 
usurpers,  declared  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  that 
all  spiritual  power  is  derived  from  Episcopal  or- 
dination ?  That  neither  Presbyter  nor  Deacon  has 
a  right  to  baptize  without  the  Bishop's  authority? 
Does  not  he  challenge  the  heretics  to  produce  a  list 
of  their  Bishops,  from  the  Apostles,  as  the  Catho- 
lics could  ?  What  could  have  induced  Tertullian 
to  be  silent  with  respect  to  this  usurpation,  if  it  had 

*  Page  302. 
Q2 


174  Letter  XIX. 

ever  existed  ?  Or  rather,  what  could  have  induced 
him  to  assert  such  a  shameless  falsehood,  as  that 
Episcopacy  was  of  Apostolical  institution,  if  it  was 
not  a  notorious  fact  ?  What  also  could  have  induced 
the  learned  Clemens  of  Alexandria  to  be  silent  upon 
this  point  ?  Was  he  one  of  the  usurping  Bishops  ? 
Would  he  have  recorded  his  own  shame  by  lifting 
up  his  voice  against  the  usurpation?  Or  rather, 
would  he  not  have  been  highly  culpable^  if  he  had 
been  silent  ?  Bat  we  hear  no  remonstrance  from 
him.  On  the  contrary,  we  find  him  declaring 
;hat  the  Apostles  left  three  orders  in  the  church- 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.  We  have  the 
^ame  testimony  from  the  profoundly  learned  Ori- 
gen.  He  also  was  but  a  Presbyter  ;  and  therefore 
one  of  the  sufferers  under  this  unchristian  domina- 
;ion.  He  had,  too,  a  peculiar  motive  for  unmasking 
die  imposition.  He  conceived  himself  to  have 
been  ill  treated  by  his  Bishop.  Yet,  irritated  as  he 
was,  he  declares  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  ap- 
pointment. Did  he  not  know  how  the  matter  was? 
Was  he  an  idiot,  or  a  knave  ?  Was  he  afraid  to  tell 
the  truth,  or  had  he  any  motive  for  telling  a  lie  ? 
Surely,  Sir,  we  have  got  to  a  strange  pass,  when 
>uch  monstrous  fictions  are  imposed  upon  man* 
kind  ? 

But  why  are  the  Christian  Bishops  to  be  excluded 
from  bearing  their  testimony  to  Episcopacy  ?  Oh ! 
they  were  the  usurpers,  and  of  course  could  not  re- 
;?rd  their  own  shame*    Was  Ignatius  a  usurper? 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy*         1 7T 

Does  the  man  who  had  been  forty  years  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  who  had  been  ordained  to  that  office  by 
Apostolic  imposition  of  hands,  and  who  encountered 
for  the  sake  of  Christ,  death  in  one  of  its  most  hor- 
rible forms,  deserve  that  character?  Did  he,  virtuous 
and  pious  as  he  was,  go  out  of  the  world  with  a  lie 
in  his  mouth  I    Did  this  martyr,  who  declares  over 
and  over  again,  that  the  office  which  he  bore  was 
of  divine  institution,  record  his  own  shame?    Was 
Polycarp,  the  venerable  and  pious  Bishop  of  Smyr- 
na, one  of  those  usurping  Prelates  I    He  must  have 
had  a  principal  hand  in  the  business,  if  Blondel  and 
the  Westminster  divines  have  guessed  right ;  for  he 
lived  at  the  very  time  when,  they  say,  this  flagitious 
revolution  was  effected.     Was  this   distinguished 
character,  who  recommended  in  strong  terms  the 
epistles  of  Ignatius,  in  which  the  divine  right  of 
Episcopacy  is  repeatedly  asserted,  and  who,  from 
recommending  them,  must  have  been  of  the  same 
opinion  -y  was,  I  say,  Polycarp  one  of  those  usur- 
pers ?     Did  he  go  out  of  the  world,  triumphing  in 
the  flames,  and  exulting  in  the  hope  of  happiness,, 
when  he  had  upon  his  soul  the  guilt  of  destroying 
that  sacred  regimen  which  Christ  left  in  his  church? 
Was  he  tenacious  of  the  time  of  keeping  Easter, 
which  was  of  no  material  consequence  ;  but  regard- 
less of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church  ? 
If  these  questions  will  admit  of  an  answer  in  the 
affirmative,  then  the  nature  of  man  is  totally  differ- 
ent from  what  it  was  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church. 


176  Letter  XIX. 

At  that  time,  great  events  were  not  recorded,  while 
the  most  insignificant  were.  At  that  time,  revolu- 
tions were  effected  by  simple  volition;  but  ever 
since  they  have  required  vigorous  action.  Then 
the  government  of  the  Church  was  subverted  with- 
out the  least  notice,  noise,  or  contention;  but  now 
it  would  excite  the  greatest  commotions,  and  most 
virulent  animosities.  In  that  age  men  loved  misery ; 
but  now  they  abhor  it.  Then  art  and  intrigue 
possessed  magical  power,  and  were  irresistible  ; 
novo,  their  influence  may  be  effectually  counteracted. 
In  short,  a  total  revolution  has  taken  place  in  the 
human  mind,  as  well  as  in  the  Church.  Its  princi- 
ples, its  motives,  its  feelings,  its  powers,  have  un- 
dergone a  complete  change* 

Surely,  Sir,  I  need  not  go  on  naming  other  dis- 
tinguished lights  of  the  Church  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries.  I  need  not  say  any  thing  about 
Hegesippus,  and  Justin  Martyr,  and  Mclito,  and 
Poly  crates,  and  Theophilus,  and  Ireneus,  and  several 
others  in  the  second  century ;  and  Miltiades,  and 
Minutius  Fcelix,  and  Alexander  of  Jerusalem,  and 
Cyprian,  and  Cornelius,  and  many  more  in  the  third 
century;  several  of  whom  left  writings  behind  them, 
in  which  there  is  not  a  tittle  about  a  change  of  go- 
vernment; and  all  of  them  were  men  of  distinguished 
piety,  eminent  virtue,  and  respectable  talents.  To 
talk  of  these  men  being  either  usurpers  themselves, 
or  encouragers  of  usurpation,  either  by  word  or 
deed,  in  others  ;  or  of  even  keeping  silence  during 


Rae  and  Pre  <         :f  Epucopdtfk         it; 

-rogress,  or  after  it  took  place,  is  such  an  c 
mge  committed  upon  probability,  that  it  is  mcon- 
ceivable  to  me  how  any  one  can  possibly  be  guilty 
o£it.    Yet  such  "s  the.  feet,  that  ycu  are  :  it, 

whether  it  can  be  accounted  for  or  not. 

i  go  on,  S  e  save  unvaried  strain  of 

conjecture  and  fancy.  You  think  it  *  probable  that 
die  little  that  was  written  on  such  a  subject,  [a 
change  cf  government]  would  be  lost ;  because  tb* 
art  of  printing  being  unknown,  and  the  trouble  and 
expense  of  multiplying  copies  being  only  incurred 
for  the  sake  of  possessing  interesting'  and  poptdat 
works,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  writings  so 
hostile  to  the  ambitious  views  of  the  CI  :uld 

be  much  read,  if  it  were  possible  to  suppress  them.* 
It  seems  then,  that  you  know,  or  at  least  think  it 
probable,  that  in  several  works  which  are  lost,  there 
WM  some  account  of  this  revolution^  Was  there 
ever  such  an  argument:  as  this  from  a  man  • 
wishes  to  be  deemed  a  reasoner !  At  this  rate,  what 

j  become  cf  the  best  attested  facts?  A  sceptic 
has  nothing  to  do  but  to  say,  u  it  is  probable  that 
the  little  that  was  written7'  in  opposition  to  those 
facts,  is  lost ;  but  if  we  had  those  writings,  it  is 
very  likely  that  we  should  have  a  very  differ 
story.     Or  if  the  art  of  printing  had  been  kne- 

:  bable  that  those  books  wh  i  c  h  contradict 

the  alleged  facts,  would  have  been  so  much  multi- 

:otal  destruction,  and  then 

those  pretended  facts  would  appear  gross  iropesi- 


1T8  Letter  XIX. 

tlons.  What  a  sweeping'  way  of  reasoning  is  this  ! 
Might  not  the  Deists,  at  this  rate,  argue  against 
the  Gospel  History,  that  "  perhaps  there  were  ac- 
counts published  concerning  our  blessed  Saviour  by 
good  hands,  directly  contrary  to  those  in  the  Gos- 
pels now  extant,  although  they  are  entirely  lost,  as 
many  books  of  the  adversaries  of  Christianity  are 
known  to  be  ?  And  how  easily  may  they  argue 
against  the  reasonableness  of  our  receiving  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  upon  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  that  we  know  not  what  they  all 
thought  j  that  many  of  them  are  lost,  which,  per- 
haps, contradicted  the  testimony  of  the  remaining 
part  ?  Would  it  not  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  such 
persons,  that  nothing  can  be  more  unreasonable 
than  to  reject  the  concurrent  testimony  of  all,  or 
most  of  the  writers  extant,  upon  so  groundless  a 
supposition  as  this  ?  Nay,  that  it  is  more  reason- 
able to  think,  that  the  writers  not  extant,  bore  wit- 
ness to  the  same  things,  and  that  if  they  believe 
anv  thing  upon  the  testimony  of  past  writers,  they 
ought  in  reason  to  believe  this,  because  the  same 
surmises  lie  against  all  historians  ?"* 

I  have  now,  I  flatter  myself,  proved  the  extreme 
weakness  of  your  reasoning  to  show  the  possibility 
and  probability  of  a  change  from  Presbytery  to 
Episcopacy.  And  if  the  human  mind  canno* 
act  without  motives  j   if  no  motive  can  possibly 

*  Hoadley's  brief  Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination,  p.  18,  19t 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy*         179 

be  assigned  consistently  with  the  universally  ac- 
knowledged principles  of  human  actions;  if  a 
change  which  deprived  the  Presbyters  of  the  Church 
of  their  most  sacred  rights,  and  was  in  the  highest 
degree  calculated  to  produce  the  most  violent  oppo- 
sition, and  the  most  rancorous  enmity ;  if,  notwith- 
standing, no  opposition  was  excited,  and  not  a  hint 
given  by  any  writer  of  antiquity,  that  such  a  revo- 
lution took  place ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  if  every  au- 
thor who  mentions  the  subject  founds  Episcopacy 
upon  Apostolical  institution  ;  then  the  conclusion  is 
irresistible,  that  no  change  took  place  ;  but  that 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church  there 
was  no  such  thing  as  parity,  but  a  real  distinction 
of  office  and  character. 

Notwithstanding  the  reasoning  upon  which  I  rest 
this  conclusion,  is  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the  hu- 
man mind,  from  the  well  known  circumstances  of 
the  Church  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  from 
the  universally  acknowledged  virtue  and  piety  of 
those  who  must  necessarily  have  been  concerned  in 
this  flagitious  usurpation,  and  from  the  total  silence 
of  all  antiquity  upon  the  subject ;  yet,  you  venture 
to  assert  that  a  change  was  not  only  practicable  and 
probable y  but  that  it  actually  took  place.  Well,  Sir, 
let  us  now  try  this  point. 

And  here  I  would  observe,  that  all  you  have  said 
to  prove  that  a  change  actually  took  place,  is  nothing 
more  .than  you  had  said  in  different  parts  of  your 
book ;  to  which  I  have  given  a  very  particular  an- 


180  Letter  JCIX. 

swer.  But  as  you  have,  by  way  of  recapitulation, 
again  brought  to  view  the  same  points,  it  may  be 
expedient  for  me  to  repeat,  in  as  concise  a  manner 
as  possible,  my  replies, 

.  1.  You  urge  the  indiscriminate  use  of  scripture 
titles.  This  has  been  fully  answered  over  and 
gver  again.  It  has  been  evinced,  that  the  commu- 
nity of  names  amounts  to  nothing  at  all.  There 
were  during  the  lives  of  the  Apostles  three  orders 
in  the  Church — Apostles,  Bishops  or  Presbyters, 
and  Deacons ;  and  in  the  next  age,  the  successors 
of  the  Apostles  were  styled  Bishops,  who  had 
under  them,  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  This  is 
generally  the  language  used  by  the  writers  of  all 
ages  succeeding  the  first;  and  whenever  the  Fathers 
style  a  Bishop  a  Presbyter,  which  is  very  seldom,  it 
is  done  with  propriety,  as  the  greater  implies  the 
less.  u  It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  proof  of 
these  positions.  They  will,  therefore,  be  assumed 
as  established  points."  But  when  you  tell  us,  that 
"**  in  the  writings  of  the  third  century,  we  begin  to 
perceive  a  style  of  expression  indicating  a  com- 
mencement of  a  distinction  between  Bishops  and 
Presbyters,7'  you  assert  what  has  been  abundantly 
proved  to  be  erroneous  ;  for  I  have  shown  that  the 
writers  of  the  second  century,  particularly  Ignatius, 
used  the  same  distinctive  language;  and  that  arose 
not  from  "  a  change  in  the  nature  of  the  offices"  but 
from  the  fact,  that  the  Bishops  succeeded  to  the 
Apostolical  pre-eminence  j  and  that,  therefore,  there 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.  13  i 

was  no  alteration  in  the  regimen  of  the  Church,  as 
Presbyterian  writers  gratuitously  assert. 

2.  You  repeat  your  declaration,  that  Jerome, 
Hilary,  and  Chrysostom^  writers  of  the  fourth  cen* 
tun-,  maintain  that  a  change  took  place  after  the 
Apostolic  age ;  but  I  have  shown  from  their  express 
assertions,  that  they  held  Episcopacy  to  be  an 
Apostolic  institution  ;  and  their  testimonies  "  are 
so  pointed  and  unquestionable,  and  so  formally 
stated,  that  they  must  silence  even  prejudice  and 
sophistry  themselves.  Were  not  these  learned  men 
as  likely  to  understand  the  subject  on  which  they 
wrote  as  any  of  the  present  day  ?  Is  it  credible 
that  they  should  be  totally  deceived  concerning  a 
fact,  which,  if  it  did  not  fall  under  their  own  ob- 
servation, must  have  been  personally  witnessed  by 
their  predecessors  ?  It  is  not  credible.  Yet  unless 
we  suppose  these  writers  to  have  been  either  deceiv- 
ed or  dishonest,"*  the  Episcopal  form  of  church 
government  was  of  Apostolic  and  divine  institution. 

3.  You  observe  that  "  Prelacy  was  first  embraced 
in  populous  and  wealthy  cities."  This  is  perfectly 
correct.  It  was  first  embraced  in  Jerusalem,  An- 
iioch,  Rome,  Alexandria,  <kc.  and,  from  these  seats 
of  primitive  purity,  it  spread  into  the  neighbouring 
countries,  and  became  general. 

You  next  observe,  that  "  Hilary  and  others  de- 
clare that  many  of  the  African  Presbyters  continued 

*  Page  305. 

Vol.   II.  R 


m  Utter  XIX. 

to  exercise  the  ordaining'  power  until  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century."  I  have  fully  proved,  in  my 
second  letter ,  that  Hilary  says  no  such  thing.  The 
word  he  uses  is  consignant,  not  ordinanU  Consigno 
was  generally  applied  to  baptism,  sometimes  to  con- 
firmation, but  perhaps  never  to  ordination.  Who 
the  others  are  that  bear  this  testimony,  you  have  not 
told  us,  and  therefore  it  is  needless  to  inquire.  If 
you,  Sir,  have  discovered  any  thing  of  this  kind,  it 
is  more  than  any  of  your  predecessors  discovered. 
The  secret  was  certainly  worth  disclosing. 

Next,  Sir,  you  inform  us,  that "  the  churches  in 
Scotland  remained  Presbyterian  in  their  govern- 
ment, from  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into 
that  country,  in  the  second  century,  until  the  fifth 
century,  when  Palktdius  succeeded  in  introducing 
Diocesan  Bishops  f*  and  you  say,  in  a  note,  that 
u  this  fact  is  ascertained  by  the  writings  of  Major, 
Fordon,  and  Archbishop  Usher"  Well,  Sir,  if 
this  be  true,  here  is  something  that  looks  like  an 
exception  to  the  general  rule  and  practice,  from 
whatever  cause  it  proceeded.  But  if  this  whole  story 
should  turn  out  to  be  a  mere  fiction,  it  will  certainly 
put  you  into  a  very  unpleasant  predicament.  Let  us 
6ive  this  point  a  fair  examination,  and  see  how  the 
matter  will  terminate. 

.  It  is,  I  believe,  universally  acknowledged,  that 
the  first  inhabitants  of  North-Britain,  of  whom  we 
have  any  records,  were  the  Picts,  who  are  supposed 
to  have  been  a  colony  from  Scandinavia.     Accord™ 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy. 

;ng  to  Bede,  who  wrote  700  years  before  For  don,  the 
South  Picts  were  converted  to  the  Christian  faith  in 
the  year  412,  by  Nennianus,  a  British  Bishop,  who 
had  been  educated  at  Pome,  and  who,  of  course, 
would  plant  Episcopacy  among  them.     I  know  it 
may  be  said,  upon  the  authority  of  Prosper,  a  con- 
temporary writer,  that  Pope  Ccclestine  sent,  in  the 
year  431,  Palladius,  whom  he  ordained  a  Bishop, 
to  the  Scots  that  believed  in  Christ.    Now,  the  ques- 
tion is,  who  are  meant  by  the  Scots  ?    According  to 
Usher,  Stilling  fleet,  Loyd,  and,  I  believe,  the  ge- 
nerality of  historians,  those  who  are  now  called 
Scots,  are  the  descendants  of  a  colony  from  Ireland, 
which  was  anciently  called  Scotia,     If  so,  Palladium 
mission  was  not  to  the  people  now  called  Scots,  but 
to  the  people  of  Ireland.     One  thing  is   beyond 
dispute,  because  all  history  asserts  it,  that  Palla- 
dius  did  preach  the  Gospel  iu  that  country  before 
St.  Patrick,  and  converted  a  few  to  the  Christian 
faith.     And  it  appears  from  another  passage  quoted 
by  Bishop  Loyd  from  Prosper,  that  this  is  the  true 
sense  of  the  passage  just   produced.     "  Caelestine 
having  ordained  a  Bishop  for  the  Scots,  while  he 
endeavours  to  keep  the  Roman  Island  Catholic,  hath 
also  made  the  Barbarous  Island  Christian.     Where, 
as  by  the  Roman  Island,  he  means  Britain,  which 
other  writers  likewise  call  by  that  name  ;  so,  by  the 
Barbarous  Island  opposed  to  it.  lie  means  Ireland"* 

*  Loyd's  Arc.  Ch.  Gov.  &a  p.  51,  52. 


184  Letter  XIX. 

Bishop  Loyd,  to  settle  this  point,  quotes  several 
other  authorities.  First,  Nennius,  who  says,  that 
u  Bishop  Palladius  was  sent  at  first  (before  Patrick  J 
by  Ccclestzne,  the  Roman  Bishop  and  Pope,  to  con- 
vert the  Scots  to  Christ ;"  adding,  that  u  Palladius 
went  from  Ireland,  and  came  into  Britain,  and  died 
there  in  the  land  of  the  Picts"*  Loyd  next  quotes 
Probus,  in  the  life  of  *ft.  Patrick,  "  Palladius  had 
been  sent  (before  him)  by  Pope  Ccelestine  to  convert 
this  island  ;  but  God  hindered  him  from  converting 
that  nation  (of  the  Scots  J;  for  these  rugged  and 
wild  men  would  not  receive  his  doctrine,  nor  would 
lie  stay  any  long  time  in  a  land  which  was  not  his  ; 
but  was  disposed  to  return  to  him  that  sent  him  ; 
and  when  in  order  to  this,  Palladius  had  passed  the 
sea,  and  was  come  to  the  confines  of  the  Picts, 
there  he  died."f  Loyd  gives  us  also  a  similar  tes- 
timony from,  Jocelin,  who  says,  "  Because  the 
Irish  believed  not  his  ( Palladius* 'J  preaching,  but 
most  obstinately  opposed  him,  he  departed  from 
their  country  ;  and  in  his  way  to  Rome,  he  died  in 
Britain,  near  the  confines  of  the  Picts"%  And 
Loyd  further  observes,  that  "  it  was  above  120 
years,  that  the  North  Picts  still  continued  in  their 
gentilism.  And  then,  about  the  year  560,  St.  Co- 
lumba,  who  was  a  Scot,  came  over  out  of  Ireland, 
and  having  obtained   the   isle  of  Hy,   where   he 

*  Csl.  52,  in  Usher's  Copy.       f  Vita  Pat.  lib.  i.  col.  230. 

f  Jote.  vita  Patricii,  c,  '25. 

\  See  Lqyd'i  ancient  Church  Government,  n  ST. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         185 

founded  a  monastery,  he  and  the  monks  that  he 
brought  with  him,  converted  King  Brudius,  and 
his  nation  to  the  faith  of  Christ."^ 

It  appears  now,  Sir,  from  these  testimonies,  that 
the  people  of  North-Britain  were  not  (as  you  say) 
converted  to  the  Christian  faith  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, but  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth,  by  Nennianus, 
a  British  Bishop,  who,  of  course,  would  put  the 
Church  under  an  Episcopal  regimen ;  and  that  Pal- 
ladius  was  not  the  planter  of  Episcopacy  among 
ihem,  he  having  been  sent  by  Ccelestine  to  Ireland, 
where  he  stayed  but  a  short  time,  in  consequence 
of  the  little  success  he  had  in  that  country. 

I  know  of  nothing  that  can  be  opposed  to  this, 
but  the  testimony  of  For  don.  Let  us  examine 
what  he  says,  and  then  we  shall  be  at  no  loss  to 
determine  how  the  matter  stands. 

This  writer  was  a  Priest  of  the  diocese  of  St. 
Andrews,  and  Chaplain  of  the  Church  of  Aberdeen. 
He  lived  in  the  time  of  the  Kings  Robert  the  second 
and  third,  and  compiled  the  history  of  the  Scots  in 
•five  books,  bringing  it  down  to  the  death  of  King 
David the  first,  in  1153,  which,  with  continuations 
by  other  hands  to  the  death  of  James  the  first,  in 
1437,  is  commonly  known  by  the  title  of  Scotichro- 
liccn,  or  the  Scots  Chronicle.  Now,  says  Skinner 
In  his  Ecclesiastical  History ,f  "  all  he  says  on  the 

bject  is,  that  in  the  seventh  year  of  the  Emperor 

*  Page  69.        f  Vol.  i.  p.  27,  28. 
R   2 


ISo  Letter  XIX. 

Severus,  Victor,  the  first  of  the  name,  and  fourteenth 
after  St,  Peter,  an  African,  and  son  of  one  Felix, 
sat  in  the  papal  chair  ten  years,  two  months,  and 
twelve  days.  Under  him  the  Scots  received  the 
Christian  faith  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  203."  This, 
it  seems,  is  all  the  information  that  can  be  got  from 
Fordon,  He  quotes  no  authorities ;  and  as  he  lived 
1100  years  after  the  supposed  conversion  of  the 
Scots,  and  contradicts  authors  who  lived  some  cen- 
turies before  him,  his  assertion,  that  Scotland  was 
christianized  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
is  not  entitled  to  the  least  regard. 

About  143  years  after  Fordon,  came  out  Hector 
Boece^s  history  of  Scotland,  in  the  year  1526.  He 
repeats  the  same  story,  with  the  embellishment  of 
an  embassy  to  Victor  from  Donald,  a  king  of  Boecehj 
or  some  other  person's  creating;;  for  there  is  no 
evidence  that  there  existed  at  that  time  any  king  by 
that  name.  Skinner  says,  "  Boece  was  obliged  to 
coin  a  king  of  his  own :  for  hitherto  he  had  met 
with  no  such  name,  not  in  any  of  the  traditional 
genealogies  of  the  old  Shannachies  (or  Bards);  nor 
in  Fordoes  history,  which,  though  he  had  it  in  his 
possession,  he  never  once  mentions;  nor  in  the  his- 
tory which  he  himself  says  Bishop  Elphinstone 
wrote,  and  which  he  proposes  to  follow  ;  nor  in  the 
Breviary  of  Aberdeen,  drawn  up  and  printed  by  that 
•Bishop's  order  in  1509  ;  in  none  of  which  is  a  word 
of  a  king  Donald,  or  any  thing  looking  that  way. 
And  if  so,  what  becomes  of  all  the  subsequent 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         1S7 

plans  that  we  meet  with  of  church  affairs  in  Boecc 
and  his  followers  j  such  as  king  CrathilinthJs  eject- 
ing the  Druids  out  of  Man,  and  planting  Christian 
clergy  in  their  room,  and  the  like  ?  And  what 
stress  can  be  laid  upon  the  accounts  of  church  go- 
vernment, given  us  in  consequence  of  such  an  un- 
supported hypothesis,  by  some  of  our  professed 
historians,  that  in  these  old  times  the  Scots  were 
instructed  in  the  faith  by  Priests  and  Monks  with- 
out Bishops."* 

But,  Sir,  were  I  to  admit  Fordon's  testimony  in 
its  full  force,  it  would  be  of  no  disservice  to  us, 
nor  of  any  advantage  to  you.  He  says,  that  the 
Scots  were  converted  to  Christianity  in  the  year  203, 
under  the  direction  of  Pope  Victor.  This,  by  the 
acknowledgment  of  your  ablest  writers,  is  fifty 
years  after  the  general  introduction  of  Episcopacy ; 
and,  therefore,  we  must  of  necessity  conclude,  that 
the  Church  of  Scotland  was  established  under  that 
form  of  government. 

You  go  on,  Sir,  in  the  same  strain  of  miscon- 
ception and  misrepresentation.  You  say,  "  It  also 
appears,  from  the  most  authentic  history,  that  the 
country  churches  generally  maintained  the  primitive 
plan  of  government  much  longer  than  those  of  the 
cities,  and  were  from  one  to  two  centuries  later  in 
receiving  Episcopacy  as  a  superior  order.  The 
ministers  of  these    country    congregations    were 

;  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  57,  33. 


188  Letter  XIX. 

called  Chorepiscopi,  or  country  Bishops.  They  con- 
tinued to  exercise  full  Episcopal  powers  a  consider- 
able time  after  the  Presbyters  within  and  near  the 
great  cities  had  become  subject  to  diocesans  ;  until 
at  length  the  influence  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 
of  some  other  ambitious  Prelates,  procured  a  de- 
cree of  the  Council  of  Sardis  to  suppress  the  Chor- 
episcopi entirely." 

Here,  Sir,  you  take  for  granted  what  you  certainly 
ought  to  have  fully  proved,  viz.  That  the  Chorepis- 
copi were  mere  Presbyters.  But  no;  you  have  said 
it,  and  that  is  proof  sufficient.  Had  you  consulted 
such  respectable  authors  as  Barlow,  Hammond,  Be- 
ridge,  and  Cave,  perhaps  you  would  have  received 
some  benefit  from  the  perusal.  Had  you  only  con- 
sulted Bingham,  you  would  have  found  him  assert- 
ing, that  even  Blondel,  the  great  champion  of  Pres- 
bytery, has  a  long  dissertation  to  prove,  that  all  the 
Chorepiscopi  mentioned  in  the  ancient  councils  were 
properly  Bishops.  "  And  there  needs  no  further 
proof  of  this  (says  Bingham)  than  what  Athanasins 
says  in  his  second  apology,  where  he  puts  a  mani- 
fest distinction  betwixt  Presbyters  and  the  Chor- 
episcopi. For  speaking  of  the  regular  promotion  of 
Ischyras,  who  was  made  Bishop  of  the  region  of 
the  Mareotis  by  the  Eusebian  faction,  he  says,  Ma- 
reotisw&s  only  a  region  of  Alexandria,  and  never  held 
either  Bishop  or  Chorepiscus  among  them,  but  only 
Presbyters  fixed  each  in  their  respective  villages,  or 
churches,    This,  as  Blondel  well  observes,  shows 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         1 89 

evidently,  that  the  Chorepiscopi  were  not  the  same 
with  Presbyters,  however  the  forger  of  the  decre- 
tal Epistles,  under  the  name  of  Leo  and  Damasus^ 
would  have  the  world  to  believe  so."* 

It  being  then  sufficiently  evident  that  the  Chor- 
episcopi were  proper  Bishops,  the  reason  assigned 
by  the  council  of  Sardis  for  the  abolition  of  them, 
is  of  no  manner  of  consequence  as  to  the  point 
under  discussion.  As  you  quote  it,  the  reason  is— 
Ve  vilescat  nomen  Episcopi,  i.  e*  Lest  the  title  of  a 
Bishop  should  become  too  cheap.  Well,  Sir,  what  do 
you  infer  from  this  ?  Is  there  any  thing  in  this 
reason  assigned  by  the  council  favourable  to  Pres- 
bytery ?  I  really  cannot  perceive  it.  But  you  do. 
tf  The  reason  (you  say)  is  remarkable."  Remark- 
able for  what  ?  Perspicuity  ?  Very  learned  men 
have  been  at  a  loss  to  give  a  tolerable  sense  to  the 
reason  assigned  by  the  council.  But.  you,  Sir,  see 
no  difficulties  at  all.  You  first  take  for  granted  that 
the  Chorepiscopi  were  mere  Presbyters,  and  then  you 
suppose  that  the  ambitious  city  Bishops,  desirous 
to  get  rid  of  these  independent  ministers,  influenced 
the  council  to  pass  a  canon  against  them.  This 
indeed  is  very  concise  ;  but  I  cannot  see  that  it  is 
very  rational.  For  how  does  it  make  the  name  of 
a  Bishop  cheap,  if  the  Chorepiscopi  were  only  Pres- 
byters I  I  should  suppose  that  it  is  an  unnecessary 
multiplication  of  Bishops,  and  placing  them  in  ob- 

*  Antiq.  vol.  i.  p.  !T3,  oct.  EdlN    See  also  Heylin  on  Epic 
p.  308,  309. 


290  Letter  XIX. 

scure  villages,  that  would  be  likely  to  make  them 
cheap.  To  prevent  this,  and  also  to  put  a  stop  to 
the  liberty  which  they  took  of  ordaining  without 
the  license  of  the  city  Bishops,  to  whom  they  were 
subjected  by  the  canons  of  the  Church,  that  degree 
of  Bishops  was  abolished  by  the  council  of  Sardis, 
This  seems  to  be  the  most  probable  interpretation  of 
the  words — Lest  the  title  of  a  Bishop  should  become 
cheap.  But  if  the  Chorepiscopi  were  mere  Presby- 
ters, I  cannot  see  the  least  sense  in  the  words. 

More  need  not  be  said  upon  this  point.  Your 
next  assertion,  that  u  the  churches  of  the  vallies 
in  Savoy  and  Piedmont,  were  still  more  successful 
in  supporting  primitive  Episcopacy,"  has  been  fully 
answered.  In  our  sense  of  the  words  primitive 
Episcopacy,  it  is,  I  am  well  satisfied,  perfectly  cor- 
rect ;  but  in  your  sense  of  the  words  it  is  utterly 
inconsistent  with  historical  verity.  The  people 
whom  you  mention,  were  the  Waldmses ;  and  I 
have  given  ample  proof,  that  they  were  Episcopal. 
From  them  the  Bohemians  derived  their  Bishops. 
Of  this  also  I  have  given  decisive  evidence.  I  will, 
however,  add  what  Dr.Maurice  says  upon  this  point. 
"  Before  the  Lutheran  reformation  was  that  of  the 
Bohemians;  whose  churches  were  governed  by  Dio- 
cesan Bishops;  and  where  discipline  was  so  far  from 
being  impossible,  notwithstanding  the  dioceses  were 
very  large,  that  they  were  perhaps  the  best  go- 
verned churches  in  the  world.  Bucer,  speaking  of 
this  government,  says,  H(vc  vcro  est  ccelcstis  poth<?t 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         191 

quam  Ecclesiastka  in  terris  Hierarchia ;  i.  e.  This 
is  indeed  rather  a  heavenly  than  an  Ecclesiastical 
Hierarchy  upon  earth.     And  Calvin  was  so  taken 
with  this  government,  as  well  as  discipline,  that  he 
looks  upon  their  governing  and  ordaining  Pastors 
as  no  inconsiderable  blessing.      Neque  vero  parvo 
est  estimandum  quod  tales  habent  Pastores  a  quibus 
regantur  et  ordinentur ;  i.  e.  Neither  is  it  to  be 
lightly  esteemed  that  they  have  such  Pastors  by 
•whom  they  may  be  governed  and  ordained;   and 
those  were  their  Bishops,  as  may  be  seen  in  that 
account  they  gave  of  themselves  in  Ratio  Discipli* 
no?,  Ordinisque  Eccleciastici  in  unitate  fratrum  Bo- 
hemorunu     Whoever  would  know  more  of  these 
Episcopal  Diocesan  churches,  may  consult  Last* 
tzus,  or  the  short  account  of  Commenius,  the  then 
only  remaining  Bishop  of  those  churches.     And 
these  had  such  Bishops  as  were  not  only  invested 
with  the  full  authority  of  Diocesans,  over  several 
jhurches,  but  such  as  had  been  ordained  according 
10  the  canons  of  the  ancient  church,  by  the  Bishops 
of  the  Waldenses,  who  derived  themselves  by  an 
uninterrupted  succession  from  the  Apostles."* 

u  All  these  circumstances  prove  that"  Presbytery 
is  u  an  innovation.  If  it  had  been  the  ApostolicaL 
model,  then  those  churches  which  were  most  re- 
mote from  worldly  influence,  and  discovered  the 
greatest  love  for  primitive  simplicity,  would  have 

*  Vind.  Prim,  Ch.  p  Z73,  374. 


192  Letter  XIX. 

been  ever  found  adhering  to  the  system  of "  Pres- 
bytery "  with  peculiar  zeal.  Instead  of  this,  the 
more  we  examine  the  records  of  antiquity,  the 
more  we  shall  find  precisely  the  reverse  to  be  the 
fact.  A  circumstance  which  plainly  evinces  that" 
Episcopacy  "  was  both  the  doctrine  and  practice  of 
the  Apostolic  age ;  and  that"  Presbytery  "  is  the 
invention  of  man,  and  was  introduced  long  after- 
wards."* 

Your  fourth  observation  is,  that  a  the  decrees  of 
some  of  the  early  Councils  concerning  Bishops, 
clearly  evince  that  such  a  change  as  we  have  sup- 
posed, really  took  place.  It  is  impossible  to  look 
into  the  decrees  of  the  numerous  councils  which 
were  convened  within  the  first  five  or  six  centuries, 
without  perceiving  constant  provision  made  on  the 
one  hand,  for  gradually  extending  the  power  of  the 
Bishops  ;  and,  on  the  other,  for  restraining  the  en- 
croachments of  those  whose  ambition  had  become 
inordinate  and  offensive." 

This  account,  were  it  even  correct,  is  nothing  to 
the  point  in  debate.  Restraining  the  encroach- 
ments of  Bishops,  or  gradually  extending  their 
power,  proves  that  there  were  Bishops,  whose 
power  was  restrained,  or  extended ;  and  as  we 
know  that  there  were  provincial  councils  convened 
in  the  second  century,  then  the  canons  of  those 
councils  relating  to  the  Bishops  of  that  age,  prove 

*  Letter  viii.  p.  307,  308.  Mutatis  mutandis, 


Rise  cuid  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         1 9J 

the  existence  of  Bishops.     And,  no  doubt,  those 
canons  form  a  part  of  that  evidence,  which  induced 
your  most  learned  writers  to  concede,  that  Episco- 
pacy became  the  government  of  the  church  in  the 
second  century.     And   thus,   the   very  canons  of 
which  you  speak,  instead  of  disproving,  completely 
prove  the  antiquity  of  Episcopal  regimen.     What. 
a  curiosity  in  the  region  of  controversy  is  this ! 
All  the  councils,  of  which  we  have  any  account, 
were  composed  of  Bishops.    These  councils  some- 
times found  it  necessary  to  check  Episcopal  en- 
croachments ;  at  other  times,  to  extend  Episcopal 
jurisdiction;  therefore,  the  Bishops  who  were  the 
objects  of  those  canons,  did  not  exist.      This  is 
strange.     It  appears  to  me,  that,  on  the  contrary, 
most  men  would  say,  they  did  exist.     Could  you, 
Sir,  produce  the  decree  of  a  council  of  Presbyters, 
establishing  over  themselves  and  the  people,  Epis- 
copal superiors ;  then  indeed  we  should  have  a  clear 
account  of  the  origin  of  Episcopacy,  posterior  to 
the  Apostolic  age ;  and  this  is  what  in  reason  ought 
xo  be  produced  by  those  who  talk  about  the  human 
invention  of  Episcopacy.     But  no  mortal  has  ever 
produced  such  a  decree  of  the  universal  church  j 
and,  therefore,  if  we  had  no  other  argument  than 
this,  for  the   Apostolic  origin  of  Episcopacy,   it 
seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  quite  sufficient  to  con- 
vince an  unprejudiced  mind.     Every  effect  must 
have  a  cause ;  every  stream  must  have  a  source. 
Nothing  less  than  a  decree  made  by  the  representa- 
Vol.  II.  S 


194  Letter  XIX. 

tion  of  the  whole  church,  could  have  changed  an 
institution  so  highly  important  as  that  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Christian  ministry  j  but  as  no  such  de- 
cree can  be  produced,  it  fairly  follows,  that  Epis- 
copacy proceeded  from  Apostolic  authority. 

Ycu  go  on,  Sir,  under  your  fourth  head,  to  repeat 
what  you  had  before  observed,  u  that  country  Bi- 
shops should  no  longer  be  allowed  to  ordain,"  to 
which  an  answer  has  been  given ;  and  further  you 
say,  that  "  a  canon  was  enacted  that  city  Presby- 
ters should  not  ordain  out  of  their  own  parishes, 
without  having  permission  of  the  city  Bishops,1 
And  your  inference  from  these  decrees  is,  "  that 
Presbyters  had  been  before  allowed  to  ordain  ;  and 
that  Bishops  were  gradually  undergoing  a  change 
from  the  parochial  to  the  diocesan  character." 

The  thirteenth  canon  of  the  council  of  Ancyra  is, 
no  doubt,  that  which  you  had  in  view.  But  why, 
Sir,  did  you  not  name  the  council  and  the  canon  ? 
You  certainly  know,  that  when  a  disputant  does  not 
refer  to  his  authorities,  he  is  net  entitled  to  a  reply. 
But,  waving  this,  I  presume  you  know,  that  this 
canon  has  occasioned  a  great  deal  of  learned  dis- 
quisition. Both  the  text  and  the  interpretation  are 
involved  in  much  difficulty.  Bingham  observes, 
ihat  "  the  old  translators  give  a  sense  to  the  canon 
different  from  that  of  modern  expositors."  Their 
sense  is,  that  "  the  city  Presbyters  shall  do  nothing 
without  the  license  and  authority  of  the  Bishop  in 
any  part  of  the  diocese  belonging  to  his  jurisdic- 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         f$5 

uon  ;"*  that  is,  that  they  shall  do  nothing  belong- 
ing to  their  office  ;  but  ordination  never  was  a  part 
of  their  office ;  and,  therefore,  the  canon  does  not 
comprehend  that  particular.  He  further  observes, 
that  "  some  Greek  copies  read  it  n  erqa  nofaucfe, 
which  seems  to  signify  that  Presbyters  shall  not  of- 
ficiate in  another  diocese,  without  letters  dimissory 
from  their  own  Bishop."f 

There  is  undoubtedly  great  obscurity  in  this 
canon.  Dr.  Hammond  observes,  that  there  is  a 
great  variety  of  copies,  which,  when  he  had  carefully 
compared,  he  found  the  canon  was  maimed,  and 
that  two  words  are  wanting  to  make  it  sense, 
and  to  reconcile  it  with  the  universal  voice  of  anti- 
quity. The  words  that  should  be  supplied  are 
wf*%\m  m  quidpiam  facere  ;  and  then  the  canon  will 
ran  thus  in  Latin  :  Sed  neque  Presbyteris  civitatis, 
sine  mandato  ab  Episcopo  per  literas  recepto,  quid- 
piam facere  in  unaquaque  parcecia;  i.  e.  "  Neither 
is  it  allowed  the  city  Presbyters  to  do  any  thing 
without  the  Bishop's  license  or  direction  in  any  pa- 
rish or  diocese."  This  is  precisely  the  doctrine  of 
Ignatius,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Chrysostom,  Jerome, 
the  Apostolical  canons,  and  the  tenth  canon  of  the 
council  of  Antioch ;  and,  therefore,  it  affords  rea- 
sonable ground  of  presumption,  that  Dr.  Hammond 


tatis,    sine  prxecp^o  Episccr  aliquid  imperare,   rec 

sine  auctoritate  Literarum  ejus  in  unaquaque  parochia  aliquid 
agere. 

t  Antin.  vol.  i.  p.  S4,  85. 


rsrS  Letter  XIX. 

is  right  in  inserting  the  words  quzdpiam  facer e. 
He  confirms  this  emendation  by  the  versions  of 
Isidorus  Mercator,  Gentianus  Heroetus,  (deemed 
ancient  by  Blondel  himself,)  and  by  the  57th  canon 
of  the  council  of  Laodkcea,  which  runs  in  almost  the 
same  words-— Similiter  et  Presbyter i  prater  consi- 
lium Episeopi  nihil  agant ;  i.e.  "Likewise,  let  the 
Presbyters  do  nothing  contrary  to  the  will  or  counsel 
of  the  Bishop."* 

Du  Pin  also  observes,  that  "  this  canon  is  imper- 
fect, and  that  something  must  be  supplied  to  make 
it  sense;  for  what  (says  he)  mean  these  words, 
Nor  to  the  city  Presbyters  in  another  parish  with- 
out the  permission  of  their  Bishops  P  Had  Priests 
ever  power  to  ordain  other  Priests  in  their  own 
churches?  Had  they  ever  permission  to  do  it  out 
of  their  own  churches  by  the  Bishop's  letters  ?  Why 
should  not  the  Suffragans,  (Chor  episeopi)  who 
were  above  the  priests,  have  the  same  power? 
There  must  be  something  added.  See  what  Dio- 
nysius  Exiguus  added,  in  his  version  :  No  more  is 
it  lawful  for  Priests  to  do  any  thing  in  the  diocese, 
without  the  permission  of  the  Bishop  in  writing. 
This  addition  is  found  in  the  ancient  code  of  the 
Romish  church,  published  by  t^uesnellus,  and  in 
the  version  of  Isidore ;  and  Justellus  has  restored 
it  in  the  Greek  text  of  the  code  of  the  universal 
<hurch."t 

*  Dissert,  tenia  de  omnibus  Evangeliorum  Periochis,  Sec  c.  9. 
!•  F.ccles.  Hist  vol.  i.  r>.  249. 


Rise  ana  F regress  of  Episcopacy*  197 

The  observation  of  Du  Pin,  that  the  text  of  the 
canon  is  in  a  very  corrupt  state,  from  the  circum- 
stance of  city  Presbyters  having  been  allowed  to 
ordain  without  the  Bishop's  license,  previously  to 
the  passing  of  the  canon,  while  the  Chorepiscopi, 
who  were  true  and  proper  Bishops,  were  restricted 
from  the  exercise  of  that  part  of  their  office,  carries 
with  it  great  force.  There  is  no  way  of  removing 
from  the  canon,  the  charge  of  inconsistency  with 
the  principles  and  practice  of  the  church  at  the 
time  when  it  was  formed,  but  by  adding  the  words, 
to  do  any  thing,  as  has  been  done  by  the  ablest  and 
best  writers,  both  ancient  and  modern. 

I  have  dwelt  the  longer  upon  this  point,  to  show 
the  very  singular  way  you  have  of  settling  every 
thing,  however  obscure  and  difficult.  You  assert 
roundly,  and  there  is  an  end  of  the  matter.  But 
surely,  Sir,  there  must  be  some  ^rnong  your  read- 
ers, who  will  not  be  put  off  in  this  way.  There 
must  be  some,  however  predisposed  to  receive  your 
assertions,  that  will  be  staggered  when  they  find 
adduced  so  many  instances  in  your  work  of  unfair 
management,  and  so  many  proofs  given  of  your 
ontradicting  well-authenticated  facts.  This  last 
instance  of  arbitrary  decision  is  not  the  least,  and 
I  believe  it  will  not  be  the  last,  of  this  very  cen- 
surable catalogue. 

Before  I  go  on  to  your  fifth  head  of  observations, 
I  would  just  observe,  that  it  is  an  argument  against 
Episcopacy  which  one  wTould  not  have  expected 
-S2 


198  Letter  XIX. 

from  a  man  of  sense  and  a  scholar,  that  there  have 
been  Bishops  who  attempted  to  extend  their  autho- 
rity beyond  its  due  limits.  Yes,  Sir,  this  is  un- 
doubtedly true;  but  is  it  not  equally  true,  that  Pres- 
byters and  Deacons  have  done  the  same?  With 
respect  to  the  latter,  does  not  Jerome  tell  you  so  ? 
Arid  with  respect  to  the  former,  is  not  history  full 
of  it?  I  name  but  one  of  these  Presbyters-*-t?tf/pm, 
(supposing  him  to  be  such)  the  Apostle  of  Geneva, 
Consider  his  conduct,  and  be  silent  for  ever. 

Under  y our  fifth  head  you  say, — u  The  gradual 
diminution  of  the  number  of  Bishops,  after  the 
first  three  centuries,  serves  to  confirm  the  fact  for 
which  I  am  contending.  The  great  number  of  Bi- 
shops found  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  was 
remarked  in  a  former  letter.  They  appear  to  have 
been  as  numerous  within  two  or  three  centuries  of 
the  Apostolic  age,  as  modern  parish  ministers.  But 
as  we  recede  from  that  period,  we  find  their  num- 
ber gradually  diminishing,  in  exact  proportion' as 
^heir  claims  and  honours  became  extended.  In 
the  island  of  Cre te,  where  we  are  informed  that  in 
early  times  there  were  one  hundred  Bishops,  in  a 
few  centuries  afterwards  we  find  but  txvehe.  In  a 
small  district  in  Asia,  where,  in  the  third  century, 
theie  were  settled  one  hundred  and  Jive  Bishops^  in 
two  or  three  centuries  their  number  was  reduced  to 
7iine. — What  is  the  obvious  inference  from  these 
facts  ?  That  primitive  Bishops  were  a  very  differ- 
ent class  of  officers  from  those  which  bore  that  name 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy*         1 99 

three  or  four  centuries  afterwards  j  and,  conse- 
quently, that  during  this  period  an  important  change 
had  taken  place  in  the  character  and  powers  of 
Bishops." 

Here,  Sir,  you  give  us  a  story  very  different  from 
that  you  told  us  in  your  fifth  letter.*  Now,  you 
say,  after  the  third  century  the  number  of  Bishops 
decreased  j  then,  you  represented  their  numbers  in 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  as  enormously  great- 
Thick  as  in  spring  the  flowers  adorn  the  land 
Or  leaves  the  trees 

One  of  the  councils  in  the  fifth  century,  you 
say,  was  composed  of  6000  Bishops.  Here  then 
must  have  been  a  prodigious  increase  of  Bishops, 
after  the  period  you  have  assigned  for  their  diminu- 
tion. And  in  the  same  century,  you  assert,  that  the 
council  of  a  single  province  in  Africa,  was  composed 
of  between  five  and  six  hundred  Bishops.  Where 
now  is  the  diminution  of  Bishops  after  the  third 
-  century  ?  The  fact  is,  that  Bishops  in  the  Apos- 
tolic age  were  but  few,  while  Presbyters  were  very 
numerous.  There  were  several  Elders  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  but  one  Bishop,  St.  James.  That  was 
also  the  case  at  Ephesus,  and  Crete,  and  Philippic 
and  Alexandria,  and  Rome,  and  other  places.  In 
the  second  century  we  find  the  Bishops  much  in- 
creased, in  consequence  of  the  diffusion  of  Chris- 

*  Page  198,  199. 


200  Letter  XIX. 

tianity  j  but  the  Presbyters,  from  the  same  cause, 
increased  proportionably.  This  continued  to  be  the 
case  during  the  subsequent  ages.  The  increase  of 
Bishops  in  Africa  in  particular,  after  the  schism  of 
the  Donatists,  was  enormously  great;  those  schis- 
matics placing  a  Bishop  of  their  own,  wherever 
the  Catholics  had  one."*  But  after  the  Roman 
Empire  was  torn  to  pieces  by  the  northern  bar* 
barians,  a  considerable  change  took  place.  The 
number  of  Bishops  was  in  some  places  lessened ; 
and  after  the  conquest  of  the  Saracens  in  the  East, 
many  flourishing  churches  were  entirely  extin- 
guisbed,  and  most  of  them  greatly  diminished  both 
as  to  clergy  and  people.  The  frequent  revolutions 
which  took  place  in  the  Eastern  and  Western  Em- 
pires, produced  a  constant  change  in  the  number  of 
Bishops ;  generally  on  grounds  of  a  political  na- 
ture, in  no  way  connected  with  the  spiritual  nature 
of  the  office.  But  what  argument  can  be  drawn 
from  all  this  against  the  Apostolic  origin  of  Epis- 
copacy, is  beyond  my  comprehension.  Whether 
-Bishops  have  been  more  or  less  numerous  at  dif- 
ferent periods,  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  origin 
*of  their  office,  than  with  the  origin  of  Presbytery, 
-or  of  Independency. 


•  How  strangely  is  the  world  altered  in  this  respect !  The 
very  heretics  and  schismatics  took  care  always  to  have  Bishops ; 
for  they  knew  that  otherwise  it  would  be  an  unanswerable 
argument  against  them  in  the  mouths  of  the  Catholics.  Just 
ihe  reverse  is  the  case  at  present. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         201 

What  you  say,  Sir,  with  respect  to  the  island  of 
Crete,  and  a  small  district  in  Asia,  wants  to  be  sup- 
ported by  competent  authority.  What  author  says 
that  there  were  a  hundred  Bishops  in  that  island 
in  early  times  ?  Till  I  saw  your  book  I  had  never 
heard  of  it.  I  have  consulted  Euscbius  in  those 
parts  of  his  history,  in  which  one  would  naturally 
look  for  such  an  account.  But  I  can  find  nothing 
like  it.  Bingham,  who  has  given  the  most  correct 
view  of  the  primitive  dioceses,  speaks  a  language 
very  different  from  your's.  His  words  are,  "  In 
the  isle  of  Crete,  Carolus  a  Sancto  Paulo  names 
eleven  dioceses.  The  Notitia  of  Leo  Sapiens,  in 
Leunclavius,  makes  them  twelve ;  but  Hierapetra 
is  there,  by  mistake  of  some  transcriber,  divided 
into  two,  which  being  corrected,  reduces  them  to 
the  same  number.  Whence  I  conclude,  this  was 
pretty  near  the  standing  number  for  several  ages."* 

It  now  appears,  I  think,  very  evident,  that  you 
are  at  variance  with  yourself  upon  this  point ;  but 
putting  that  out  of  the  question,  you  are  at  variance 
with  the  best  authorities  we  have  upon  the  extent  of 
dioceses,  and  the  number  of  Bishops  in  the  primitive 
ages.  But  if  you  were  even  correct,  still  your  in- 
ference with  respect  to  the  origin  of  Episcopacy, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  position,  that  the  num- 
ber of  Bishops  decreased  after  the  third  century. 
That  is  easily  accounted  for,  from  the  well  known 

■  Vol.  i.  p.  426. 


202  Letter  XIX. 

events  which  took  place  in  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Empires,  and  from  that  constant  mutability  which 
attends  all  human  affairs. 

The  last  circumstance  which  you  advance  in  fa- 
vour of  your  hypothesis  is,  "  that  it  is  confirmed 
by  the  most  learned  and  impartial  historians;"  and 
of  these  you  mention  three — Mosheim^  Gibbon^  and 
Hawezs, 

These  three  writers  give  us  nothing  more  than 
their  opinion;  and  I  have  already  observed,  that 
the  value  of  an  opinion  depends  upon  the  strength 
of  the  evidence  by  which  it  is  supported.  Mosheim 
gives  no  proofs ;  he  merely  asserts.  Assertions 
are  easily  made ;  but  proofs  are  not  so  easily  given. 
Mosheim  too  had  the  system  of  his  own  church  to 
maintain.  The  prejudice  and  errors  arising  from 
this  source,  every  thinking  mind  must  be  aware  of. 
Many  great  men  have  adopted  opinions  utterly  in- 
consistent with  facts,  and  have  maintained  princi- 
ples from  which  common  sense  revolts. 

Gibbon  is  another  of  your  authorities,  if  the  opi- 
nion of  a  man  can  be  called  authority.  I  wonder, 
Sir,  that  it  did  not  strike  you,  that  a  man  who  de- 
nied the  divine  origin  of  the  scriptures,  could  not, 
with  the  least  consistency,  allow  the  divine  origin 
of  Episcopacy.  To  have  done  this,  would  have 
been  to  renounce  infidelity.  If  the  scriptures  have 
not  the  stamp  of  divinity,  certainly  the  ministry 
which  was  instituted  to  preserve  and  expound  them, 
cannot  claim  any  character  of  that  sort. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         203 

Your  next  historian  is  Dr.  Haxveis.  Did  you 
quote  him,  Sir,  on  account  of  the  weight  he  derives 
from  his  learning,  or  profound  knowledge  of  an- 
tiquity, or  consistency  of  character  ?  Do  you  think 
that  a  man  who  despises  learning,  can  be  very 
learned  himself,  and  who  abuses  all  the  Fathers  of 
the  church,  can  know  much  about  them  ?  Do  you 
think  that  man's  testimony  is  of  much  weight,  who 
always  takes  part  with  heretics.and  schismatics,  and 
commends  Notuatiansi  Donatists,  Meletians,  and 
Luciferians,  while  Catholic  confessors  and  martyrs 
are  treated  with  contempt,  because  they  did  not 
think  as  he  does  upon  the  subjects  of  predestination 
and  grace  P  Can  you  think  that  man's  opinion  of 
any  consequence,  who  says,  that  he  "  thinks  Episco- 
pacy most  correspondent  to  the  Apostolic  practice, 
and  the  general  usage  of  the  church  in  the  first  and 
generally  esteemed  purer  ages"  and  yet  can  unite 
with  those  who  have  departed  from  Apostolical 
practice,  and  are  the  avowed  enemies  of  primitive 
usage?  Can  he  be  a  proper  guide  to  those  who 
wish  to  be  acquainted  with  the  constitution  of 
Christ's  Church,  who  says,  that  "  most  of  the  Apos- 
tles lived  and  died  among  their  brethren  in  Pales*- 
tine;  that  "  all  ecclesiastical  officers  for  the  first 
three  hundred  years  were  elected  by  the  people  ;" 
and  that  u  Matthias  was  thus  chosen  to  fill  up  the 
tribular  number  of  the  Apostles,"  as  he  expres- 
ses himself?  Is  that  man  a  diligent  and  ac- 
curate historian,  who  talks  of  the  constitutions  of 


204  Letter  XIX. 

Ignatius,  meaning,  no  doubt,  the  Apostolical  Con- 
stitutions, which  were  pretended  to  have  been 
written  by  Clement;  who  calls  Poly  carp  the  dis- 
ciple of  Ignatius,  when  all  the  primitive  writers 
assert  that  he  was  the  disciple  of  St,  John ;  who 
mistakes  the  name  of  an  office  for  the  name  of 
a  man,  calling  Pontius,  the  Deacon  of  St.  Cyprian, 
Pontius  Diaconus  P  Can,  in  short,  that  man,  who 
is  so  spiritually  minded,  because  he  believes  the 
doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation,  be  a  sure 
guide  to  primitive  truth  and  order,  when  he  speaks 
contemptuously  of  the  great  lights  of  antiquity, 
the  martyrs  and  confessors  of  the  faith  of  Jesus  ; 
and  when  he  rejects  in  a  lump  the  testimony  of  the 
early  writers  of  the  Catholic  Church?  If  such  a 
man's  opinion  can  be  of  any  service  to  you,  avail 
yourself  of  it,  Sir ;  but  we  will  be  contented  with 
the  ancient  Fathers,  as  historians  of  the  facts  which 
were  accessible  to  their  inquiries.* 
-.  I  will  close  this  letter  with  recommending  as  a 
counterpoise  to  your  three  historians,  the  Ecclesi- 
astical histories  of  Eusebius,  Sozomen,  and  Theo- 
doret-  among  the  ancients ;  Echard's  and  Du  Pin's 
among  the  moderns ;  and,  with  them,  Bingham's 
Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church. 

*  See  a  Reviexii  of  Ifaweis'  Church  History,  annexed  to 
Skinner's  Answer  to  Campbell's  Lectures,  lately  republished  by 
T.  &  J.  Swords. 


20o     ) 


LETTER  XX. 


Rev.  Sir, 

I  HAVE  now  considered,  as  briefly  as  I  well 
could,  your  manner  of  obviating  the  difficulties  at- 
tending the  supposition  of  a  change  of  government 
in  the  purest  ages  of  the  Christian  church  ;  and  if 
I  do  not  deceive  myself,  it  has  been  demonstrated, 
that  it  was  morally  impossible,  that  such  a  change 
should  have  taken  place  before  the  Roman  empire 
became  Christian.  The  profound  silence  of  ail 
antiquity  upon  the  subject ;  the  impracticability  of 
a  change,  considering  the  circumstances  of  the 
church  in  the  first  three  ages ;  the  absurdity  of  the 
supposition,  considering  the  nature  of  the  human 
mind,  which  cannot  act  without  motives  ;  the  ex- 
treme difficulty  of  perceiving  any  motive  that  could 
have  actuated  the  breasts  of  the  usurpers  ;  the  in- 
consistency of  such  a  supposition,  with  the  positive 
testimony  of  the  Fathers  to  the  Apostolic  origin  e)£ 
Episcopacy ;  the  well  known  purity  of  the  church 
in  the  second  century,  when  this  change  is  supposed 
to  have  taken  place  ;  all  these  accumulated  consi- 
derations place  Episcopacy  upon  high  and  im- 
pregnable ground.  They  r.fTcrd  what  the  great 
Vol.    II.  T 


£06  Letter  XX, 

Chillingworth  does  not  scruple  to  call  a  demonstra- 
tion of  the  Apostolic  origin  of  Episcopacy.  The 
demonstration  stands  thus—"  Episcopal  govern^ 
rnent  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  universally 
received  in  the  church  presently  after  the  Apostles' 
times.  Between  the  Apostles'  times  and  that  pre- 
sently after,  there  was  not  time  enough  for,  nor 
possibility  of,  so  great  an  alteration. 

"  And,  therefore,  there  was  no  such  alteration  as 
is  pretended.  And,  therefore,  Episcopacy  being 
confessed  to  be  so  ancient  and  Catholic,  must  be 
granted  to  be  also. Apostolic" 

In  the  preceding  letter,  I  showed  that  Presbyterian 
vriters  are  at.  variance,  when  they  attempt  to  assign 
he  century  when  Episcopacy  first  appeared  in  the 
church ;  and  also  observed,  that  this  difference 
^inong  themselves  affords  a  strong  presumption 
that  they  are  all  wrong.  I  would  now  observe,  that 
as  they  cannot  agree  with  respect  to  the  time,  so. 
neither  can  they  with  respect  to  the  source  of  this 
usurpation.  The  generality  ascribe  it  to  wicked 
ambition,  rendered  successful  by  general  corruption. 
J3ut  the  celebrated  Dr.  Campbell  takes  very  different 
ground.  He  condemns  those  who  ascribe  -the 
change  to  corruption ;  for  that,  he  says,  is  ascribing 
It  to  what  did  not  exist.  The  church,  he  assures 
us,  was  in  great  purity,  and  the  clergy  were  distin- 
guished for  their  virtue  and  piety  in  the  second 
century  ;  and  you  make  the  same  acknowledgment. 
He  ascribes  the  change  not  to  vice,  but  to  virtue ,. 


t  and  Progress  ofAEpiscophcy.         2<f: 

ruption,  but  to  piety.  Well,  Sir,  where 
are  we  now  ?  According  to  the  learned  Principal 
virtue  and  piety  changed  Presbyterian  into  Epis- 
copal government.  Who  then  would  not  wish, 
that  the  offspring  of  so  venerable  a  parent  were  suf- 
fered to  exist  in  peace  ?  And  what  an  implied  re- 
flection upon  Presbyterian  parity,  that  the  interests 
of  religon  required  its  abolition!  But  what  sort  of 
virtue  and  piety  could  that  be,  which  led  the  Pres- 
byters to  offer  to  a  few  of  their  own  order,  Episco- 
pal pre-eminence,  and  those  to  whom  it  was  offer- 
red,  to  receive  it;  both  parties  well  knowing  that  it 
was  contrary  to  the  will  of  Christ?  And  what  were 
both  parties  to  get  by  thus  depraving  the  government 
of  the  church,  and  violating  a  sacred  institution  ? 
They  certainly  could  expect  no  reward  in  the  next 
life  for  their  transgression.  And  what  did  this  life 
offer  to  the  Presbyters  for  degrading  themselves, 
and  to  the  Bishops  for  receiving  this  unchristian 
boon  ?  To  the  former,  imagination  can  give  no  equi- 
valent ;  as  to  the  latter,  did  they  derive  from  it 
wealth  and  secular  advantages?  No;  poverty  and 
contempt  were  their  certain  portion.  Had  they  less 
suffering  and  greater  security  ?  No ;  but  almost  in- 
evitable death,  and  every  species  of  torture.  It 
seems  then  that  no  motive  can  possibly  be  assigned, 
either  on  the  ground  of  virtue,  or  of  corruption, 
for  this  wonderful  change. 

The  mode  which  the  learned  Principal  adopted 
to  account  for  thi?  extraordinary  revolution  is,  if 


:iOS  Letter  XX. 

possible,  worse  than  yours.  It  is  ascribing  to  piety. 
what  nothing  but  monstrous  depravity  could  have 
suggested;  it  is  ascribing  to  the  human  mind  (as 
your  hypothesis  also  does)  action  without  motive. 
which  is  palpable  nonsense  ;  it  is  supposing  the  Bi- 
shops to  be  idiots,  in  accepting  a  superiority,  from 
which  no  advantage  could  result,  either  in  this  world 
or  in  the  next;  and,  lastly,  it  supposes  (as  the-ground 
usually  taken  does)  that  all  the  subsequent  writers 
and  councils  were  grossly  ignorant,  or  stupidly  cre- 
dulous, in  regard  to  the  Apostolic  origin  of  Epis- 
copacy.— Thus  much  for  Dr.  Campbell's  specula- 
tion, i 

The  fact  being  thus,  I  think,  established,  that 
diocesan  Episcopacy  was  sanctioned  by  the  Apos- 
tles, and  that  it  was  not  the  offspring  of  human  am- 
bition, as  you  unjustifiably  assert,  I  have  no  need 
of  taking  notice  of  what  you  call  "  a  sketch  of  the 
rise  and  progress  of  this  remarkable  usurpation."* 
For  all  you  have  said  from  page  321  to  page  329  is 
nothing  more  than  what  you  had  said  in  a  more 
diffused  manner  throughout  your  book  ;  to  every 
article  of  which,  a  sufficient  answer  (I  flatter  my- 
self) has  been  given.    , 

Before  I  pass  on  to  your  concluding  letter ,  I 
shall  make  a  few  observations  on  the  testimonies 
you  adduce  from  Gregory  Nazianzen.  You  say, 
"  That  the  synods  and  councils*  which  early  began 

*  Page  321  et  sequent. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Epi  20? 

to  be  convened,  were,  in  fact,  thus  employed  by 
the  ambitious  clergy,  to  extend  and  confirm  their 
power,  might  be  proved  by  witnesses  almost  num- 
berless.    The  testimony  of  one  shall  suffice."    You 
then  quote  Gregory  as  saying,   u  that  he  was  de- 
sirous of  avoiding  all  synods,  because  he  had  never 
seen  a  good  effect,  or  happy  conclusion  cf  any  one 
of  them  ;  that  they  rather  increased  than  lessened 
the  evils  they  were  designed  to  prevent ;  and  that 
the  love  of  contention,  and  the  lust  if  power  ^  were 
there  manifested  in  instances  innumerable.'7     And 
afterwards  speaking  of  the  council  of  Constantinople. 
which  met  in  381,  he  remarks — u  These  conveyers 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,   these   preachers  of  peace  to 
all  men,  grew   bitterlv  outrageous  and  clamorous 
against  one  another,  in  the  midst  of  the  church, 
mutually  accusing  each  other,  leaping  about   as  it 
they  had  been  mad,  under  the  furious  impulse  of  a 
lust  of  powrer  and  dominion,  as  if  they  would  have 
rent  the  whole  world  in  pieces.     This  was  not  the 
effect  of  piety,  but  of  a   contention  for  thrones? 
Again :    "  Would  to  God  there  were  ?io  prelacu, 
ko  pre-eminence  of  place,  no  tyrannical  privileges  ; 
and  that  we  might  be  distinguished  by  virtue  alone. 
This  right  and  left  hand,   and   this  middle  place, 
diese  higher  and  lower  dignities,  and  this  state-like 
precedency,  have   caused  many  fruitless   contests 
and  bruises,  have  cast  many  into  the  pit,  and  car-- 
ried  away  multitudes  to  the  place  of  goats."    Upon 
these  quotations,  you  ask,  "  Would  an  eminently 
T2 


210  Letter  XX. 

learned  and  pious  Bishop  have  spoken  thus,  if  he 
had  considered  prelacy  as  of  divine  appointment  ?" 
To  this  question  I  answer  without  hesitation — 
Yes,  he  might  have  thus  spoken  in  perfect  consist- 
ency with  the  belief  that  Episcopacy  was  of  divine 
origin.  Was  there  ever  a  more  fallacious  mode 
of  reasoning  than  this  ?  Bishops  have  abused  their 
authority,  therefore  the  office  is  not  of  divine 
appointment.  Some  councils  have  done  more 
harm  than  good ;  therefore  councils  are  pernicious. 
Whither  will  not  this  sophistry  lead  us?  Certainly, 
Sir,  farther  than  you  desire.  Many  of  you*-  rea- 
ders, no  doubt,  will  stop  precisely  at  the  point  at 
which  you  would  wish  them  to  stop ;  but  others 
will  "  push  you  over  the  precipice"  with  the  conse- 
quences of  this  fallacy.  The  Papists  will  tell  you, 
that  reading  the  Bible  has  produced  heresies  and 
schisms ;  therefore  it  cannot  be  the  duty  of  the  laity 
to  read  it.  The  Quaker  will  tell  you,  and  with 
truth,  that  Presbyters,  as  well  as  Bishops,  have 
been  proud,  and  contentious,  and  ambitious ;  and, 
therefore,  we  are  better  without  them.  The  Deists 
well  tell  you,  that  Christianity  has  occasioned  sedi- 
ions,  rebellions,  wars,  massacres,  and  innumerable 
other  mischiefs  ;  and,  therefore,  it  cannot  be  of 
iivine  institution.  Whither  will  not  this  sophism 
lead  us  ?  It  has  deprived  us  of  the  Bible,  of  a  mi- 
nistry, and  of  religion  altogether.  It  will  also  de- 
prive us  of  civil  government.  Under  every  form 
much  mischief  has  been  done.     Great  injustice, 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,        Si  1  i 

cruelty,  and  oppression  of  ever)7  kind,  have  been 
committed  by  rulers  in  all  ages,  and  all  nations  ; 
therefore,  we  are  better  without  government. 
Language,  says  the  misanthrope,  is  a  great  evil. 
It  enables  men  to  curse,  and  swear,  and  lie,  and 
backbite  ;  therefore  they  would  do  better  without  it* 
Food  and  drink  are  pernicious  things,  for  thousands 
make  beasts  of  themselves,  and  sink  both  body  and 
soul  into  perdition.  Whither  will  not  this  sophis- 
try lead  us  ? — But  I  am  done  ;  it  is  too  apparent 
not  to  be  perceived,  too  pernicious  not  to  be  re- 
jected. 

Permit  me,  Srr,  seriously  to  ask  you,  what  was 
your  object  in  presenting  to  your  readers  these  quo- 
tations from  Gregory  ?  Was  it  to  disprove  the  di- 
vine origin  of  Episcopacy  ?  That  would  be  too  ab- 
surd. Was  it  to  show  that  he  did  not  consider  ir 
as  proceeding  from  that  source  ?.  But  what  if  he 
did  not ;  it  would  not  affect  the  evidence  for  it  ?  It 
would  amount  to  no  more  than  opinion.  I  presume 
the  object  was,  to  prejudice  your  readers  against 
Episcopacy.  If  you  could  make  a  Presbyterian  of 
Gregory y  as  he  lived  near  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  it  would  be  a  shadow  in  your  favour.  So 
valuable  are  the  ancient  Fathers,  if  they  can,  by 
any  means,  be  got  to  cast  a  favourable  look  upon 
ministerial  parity!  But  how,  Sir,  have  you  dis- 
covered that  Gregory  did  not  believe  Episcopacy  to 
be  of  divine  origin  ?  Is  it  from  his  condemna- 
tion of  the  abuse  of  the  office  ?    You  will  hardhr 


212  Letter  XX. 

answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative.  That  would 
lead  you  into  all  the  consequences  of  this  species  of 
sophism.  Is  it  from  the  quotations  you  have  given 
us?  There  is  no  assertion  of  that  sort  in  them. 
Is  it  from  his  wishing  that  there  were  no  dignities 
in  the  church — no  higher  places  to  contend  about  ? 
That  wish,  when  properly  understood,  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  a  belief  of  the  divine  origin  of  Epis- 
copacy. The  temporal  prerogatives,  great  wealth, 
and  high  honours  that  were  attached  to  the  Episco- 
pal office,  were  merely  accidental  circumstances, 
and  in  no  respect  whatever  necessarily  connected 
with  the  office.  The  powers  of  a  Bishop,  like  those 
of  a  Presbyter,  are  altogether  spiritual,  and  there- 
fore presenting  nothing  to  gratify  ambition,  or  to 
foster  pride.  It  is,  when  faithfully  discharged,  a 
laborious,  painful,  and  highly  responsible  office, 
I  cannot  conceive  what  there  is  in  such  an  office, 
to  induce  any  man  to  aspire  after  it,  when  neither 
wealth,  nor  temporal  honours  are  annexed  to  it. 
But  it  has  been  too  much  the  misfortune  of  the 
church,  to  have  her  dignitaries  overloaded  with  the 
distinctions  of  the  world,  which  have  a  natural  ten- 
dency to  wean  the  mind  from  spiritual  things. 

In  reading  over  that  abstract  of  the  works  of 
Gregory,  which  Du  Phi  has  given  us,  I  cannot  find 
a  single  expression  that  would  induce  one  to 
think,  that  he  did  not  believe  the  divine  institution 
©f  Episcopacy.  It  rather  affords  a  presumption 
that  he  did  believe  it,  that  he  himself  was  a  Bishop. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         213 

And  in  his  seventeenth  discourse  about  some  dif- 
ferences that  happened  at  Nazianzum.  between  the 
people  and  the  governor,  he  tells  him  "  that  he 
should  not  take  it  ill,  that  he  spoke  to  him  with 
freedom ;  that  the  law  of  God  subjects  him  to  the 
commandment  of  his  Bishop"*  Now,  with  what 
truth  could  Gregory  say  so,  if  he  did  not  believe 
that  the  Episcopal  office  was  of  divine  appoint- 
ment ?  It  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  such  a 
declaration. 

But  does  not  Gregory  wish,  that  there  were  "  no 
prelacy,  no  pre-eminence  of  place,  no  tyrannical 
privileges  \n  He  does  not  wish  that  there  were 
no  Bishops,  but  no  pre-eminence  among  Bishops — 
no  tyrannical  privileges  among  that  order  of  the 
ministry;  but  that  they  were  all  as  Christ  left  them, 
perfectly  equal.  This,  Sir,  is  very  sound  doctrine, 
and  perfectly  consistent  with  high  church  principles. 
Even  the  Metropolitical presidency, as  it  stood  before 
the  empire  became  Christian,  is  not  at  all  inconsis- 
tent with  this  wish  of  Gregory's.  A  well  regulated 
presidency,  not  confined  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Ikfe- 
tropoles,  but  falling  where  it  ought,  upon  men  of  the 
greatest  virtue  and  talents,  is  liable  to  no  reasonable 
objection.  Unfortunately,  this  moderation  was  not 
observed  after  the  empire  became  Christian,  but 
some  undue  privileges  were  conferred  by  the  civil 
power  upon  the  Bishops  of  the  great  cities.     It  is 

*  Du  Pin's  Ecc  Hist.  voJ  i.  p.  166. 


214  Letter  XX. 

sgainst  this  pre-eminence  of  place,  against  these  ty~ 
rannical privileges  that  Gregory  exclaims.  But  you, 
very  unwarrantably,  endeavour  to  make  your  read- 
ers believe,  that  he  wished  there  wa3  no  Episcopal 
superiority  in  the  church  ;  and,  to  give  it  that  air, 
you  translate  the  Greek  word  wpo^ra,*  prelacy, 
when  it  would  be  more  correct  to  translate  it  chief 
seat,  or  prerogative  of  place — that  is,  chief  seat 
among  Bishops,  whom  he  wished  to  see  in  a  state 
of  equality  ;  since  pre-eminence  of  place  had  been 
attended  with  so  much  contention.  This  is  the  true 
sense  of  the  quotations  you  have  given  us  from 
Gregory, 

■  In  order  to  determine,how  far  the  censures  passed 
by  Gregory  upon  some  of  the  Bishops  of  his  age 
are  well  founded,  it  is  necessary  to  know  the  state 
of  the  church  when  he  wrote,  what  were  the  par- 
ticular provocations  he  received,  and  what  were  his 
temper  and  disposition .  Without  the  knowledge 
of  these  circumstances,  it  is  impossible  to  form  a 
correct  judgment  upon  this  point. 

With  respect  to  the  state  of  the  church,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  she  had  declined  considerably  from  her 
primitive  purity  and  simplicity.  This  declension 
was  not  confined  to  a  particular  order.  Gregory 
pours  forth  his -censures  upon  the  Presbyters  and 
people  also.  Here  your  question  may  be  retorted. 
u  Would  an  eminently  learned  and  pious  Bishop 
have  spoken  thus  [of  Presbyters]  if  he  had  con- 

f  See  Bilson.  Pepet.  Govt.  &c.  p  599. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         21S 

sidered  their  office,   as  of  divine  appointment  ln 
But  notwithstanding  this  much  to  be  lamented  de- 
cay of  piety,  there  were  many  excellent  Bishops 
and  Priests,  and  a  great  number  of  virtuous  and 
religious  people.     But  while  there  were  any  of  a 
contrary  character,  Gregory's  virtuous  mind  would 
be  sensibly  wounded;  and,  in  consequence,  be  pow- 
erfully impelled  to  make  the  thunder  of  his  elo- 
quence heard  far  and  wide.     A  man  of  his  rigid 
and  austere  disposition,  and  lively,  ungovernable 
fancy,  would  naturally  be  led  into  unqualified  and 
excessive  strains  of  lamentation  and  censure.    We 
cught,  therefore,  to  make  great  abatements  from  his 
high  strain  of  invective,  and  set  down  a  good  deed 
to  the  severity  of  the  man.     One  who  could  so 
highly  panegyrize  monkery,  does  not  appear  to  me 
to  be  very  well  qualified  to  make  a  cool  and  dispas- 
sionate estimate  of  the  manners  of  the  age.     Add 
lo  all  this,  the  particular  provocations  which  he  had 
received,  and  then  we  shall  be  able  to  determine 
pretty  accurately,  how  far  we  may  safely  admit  his 
jensures. 

Gregory  was  ordained  Priest  by  his  father,  and 
Bishop  of  Sasima  by  Basil,  Bishop  of  Caesarea.  He 
vas  afterwards  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  In  that 
See,  he  met  with  much  opposition  from  the  Arians^ 
who  were  so  numerous,  and  influential,  as  to  excite 
an  uproar  against  him.  The  Arian  Bishops  and 
clergy  were  at  the  bottom  of  this  outcry.  "  Being 
very  eloquent  (says  Du  Pin)  lie  converted,  in  a  little 


216  Letter  XX. 

time,  a  great  number  of  Arians,  and  increased  the 
Catholics.  He  continued  in  the  government  of 
that  church  for  some  time ;  till  an  unhappy  difference 
arose  between  him  and  the  Eastern  Bishops  about 
the  ordination  of  Flavianus,  in  the  room  of  Meletius, 
Bishop  of  Antioclu  The  opposition  he  met  with 
in  that  affair,  induced  him  to  resign  his  Bishopric. 
He  left  Constantinople  with  great  regret,  and  ever 
afterwards  spoke  with  indignation  of  those  Bishops, 
who  had  forced  him  away  from  his  See, 

To  these  considerations  add  the  temper  of  the 
man.  According  to  Du  Pin,  he  was  of  a  severe  and 
morose  disposition.  Fond  of  retirement,  and  the 
tranquillity  of  the  ascetic  life,  he  viewed  all  the  af- 
fairs of  this  world  with  too  much  of  the  temper  of 
the  misanthrope.  Soured  by  disappointments,  and 
provoked  by  what  he  deemed  injuries,  he  gave 
way  too  much  to  lacerated  feelings,  and,  in  con- 
sequence, poured  forth  all  the  bittterness  of  in- 
vective. The  Eastern  Bishops  in  particular,  he 
considered  as  his  enemies;  and  from  a  want  of  cool 
and  dispassionate  discrimination,  he  confounded 
the  innocent  with  the  guilty.  All  this,  consider- 
ing the  weakness  of  human  nature,  is  not  much  to 
be  wondered  at.  Man  ever  has  been,  and  ever 
will  be  governed  more  by  feeling  than  by  reason; 
and  perhaps  history  cannot  furnish  an  instance 
better  calculated  to  prove  the  correctnes  of  this  as- 
sertion, than  that  which  the  life  and  character  of 
Gregory  afford. 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,  21" 

It  does  not  require  any  great  knowledge  of  the 
philosophy  of  the  human  mind,  to  determine  in 
what  light  this  celebrated  Bishop's  censures  are  tc 
be  viewed.  The  general  decline  of  primitive  piety 
afForded  him  some  ground  for  dissatisfaction,  and 
the  injuries  which  he  had  received  greatly  in- 
creased his  discontent.  But  still,  truth  and  justice 
required  that  he  should  have  charged  the  injuries 
(if  they  were  really  such)  to  those  who  were  guilty 
of  them,  and  not  have  involved  all  the  Bishops  of 
his  time  in  one  indiscriminate  censure.  Notwith- 
standing, however,  this  comprehensive  and  un- 
distinguishing  strain  of  invective,  Gregory  takes 
care  not  to  condemn  the  order  itself.  That,  be- 
yond all  doubt,  he  believed  to  be  of  divine  appoint- 
ment. 

I  should  not  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  this  point, 
could  I  have  supposed  that  all  who  read  your  letters 
are  reasoners.  When  the  mind  is  prejudiced  against 
any  particular  profession,  or  order  of  men,  the 
faults  of  that  profession  or  order  are  laid  hold  of 
with  avidity.  The  nature  and  utility  of  the  order 
are  never  viewed  with  a  philosophic  eye;  never 
placed  in  the  scale  of  fair  estimation.  Some  of  that 
order  have  been  degenerate;  therefore  the  order 
itself  is  useless.  This,  with  prejudiced  and  super- 
ficial reasoners,  is  generally  the  conclusion. 

It  does  not  a  little  astonish  me,  that  a  man  of 
your  good  sense,  of  your  amiable  disposition,  and 
of  your  universally  acknowledged  discretion,  should 

Vol.  IL  U 


318  Tetter  XX. 

have  gone  into  a  mode  of  discussion,  so  repugnant 
to  every  rule  of  right  reasoning,  and  to  every  dic- 
tate of  sound  prudence.  That  you  should  not  see 
the  fallacy  of  arguing  against  the  use  of  a  thing, 
from  the  abuse  of  it,  is  not  to  be  supposed ;  and  that 
you  should  not  perceive,  that  this  mode  of  reason- 
ing would,  if  admitted,  totally  destroy  the  ministry 
of  the  church,  is  scarcely  possible  to  be  conceived. 
This  presents  to  my  mind  a  difficulty  of  no  easy  so- 
lution. I  have  no  other  way  of  freeing  myself  from 
this  embarrassment,  but  by  supposing  that  your 
strong  prejudice  got  the  better  of  your  good  sense. 

A  few  more  remarks  upon  three  or  four  passages 
in  your  eighth  letter  will  be  sufficient.  At  p.  333, 
you  say,  "  In  this  gradual  change,  which  was  more 
than  three  centuries  in  accomplishing,  no  reasonable 
man  could  expect  to  find  the  limits  of  the  several 
steps  precisely  defined;  because  each  step  was 
slowly,  and  almost  insensibly  taken  ;  and  more  es- 
pecially, because  the  practice  of  all  the  churches 
was  not  uniform*  There  was  no  particular  time 
when  the  transition  from  a  state  of  perfect  parity, 
to  a  fixed  and  acknowledged  superiority  of  order, 
took  place  at  once,  and,  therefore,  no  such  time 
can  be  assigned." 

In  these  assertions  you  flatly  contradict  St. 
Jerome,  who  says,  that  the  change  took  place 
in  consequence  of  a  decree  throughout  the  -world, 
for  the  purpose  of  checking  schism.  Will  you 
adhere  to  him  only  when  he  is  obseure,  and  aba**-* 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Eplscopc 

Jon  him  when  he  is  clear  and  intelligible  ?  He 
lived  but  two  centuries  after  the  supposed  change, 
and  must,  therefore,  in  reason  be  supposed  to  have 
known  more  about  the  matter  than  you  can  possibly 
know.  Yet  he  does  not  say  a  syllable  about  a  char 
after  the  death  of  the  Apostles.  If  you  have  given 
us  a  true  account  of  the  "  rise  and  progress  of  Epis- 
copacy," you  must  have  derived  it  from  the  writings 
of  the  ancients;  but  he  had  all  those  writings  which 
you  have,  and  many  more  ;  and  yet  he  has  given 
us  an  account  of  the  matter  very  different  from 
your's.  What  now  shall  we  say  I  Which  is  right, 
you,  or  this  man  of  u  great  research  ?" 

2.  You  not  only  contradict  Jerome,  but  the  ablest 
Presbyterians  that  have  ever  written  upon  die  sub- 
ject— Blonde!,  Salmasius%  Chamier,   and  a  number 
of  others.     They  place  the  change  in  the  second 
century,  and  some  of  them  acknowledge,  that  there 
was  a  moderate  prelacy  established  by  the  Aposdes 
themselves.     But  it  seems  all  their  diligence,  learn- 
ing,  and  knowledge  of  antiquity,   only  led  them 
astray.     But  you  have  been  able,  by  the  help  of 
Boyse,   Campbell,  Clarkscn,    and  a  few  others,   to 
give  us  a  better  account  of  the  matter.     It  is,  to  be 
sure,  possible,  that  you  have  turned  over  more  pages 
of  the  Fathers  than  Blondel  and  Salmasius ;  but  if 
I  may  judge  from  your  seldom  giving  us  any  refer- 
ences, I  should  not  be  very  positive  that  you  have. 
3.  You  directly  contradict  all  antiquity.     I  have, 
in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  produced  so  mas 


230  Letter  XX. 

direct,  positive,  decisive  assertions  of  the  ancients, 
in  favour  of  the  Apostolical  institution  of  Episco- 
pacy, that  it  seems  to  me  impossible,  by  any  means 
whatever,  to  evade  their  force.  Notwithstanding 
this  accumulated  evidence,  which  you  must  have 
seen  in  Episcopal  writers,  you  give  your  readers  a 
fanciful  "  sketch  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  Epis- 
copacy;" and  assert  every  thing  with  as  much  posi- 
tiveness,  as  if  you  had  produced  authorities  in 
abundance.  Really,  Sir,  at  this  rate,  facts  have 
changed  their  nature,  and  are  altogether  the  crea- 
tions of  fancy. 

Another  particular  which  I  shall  notice,  is  your 
assertion,  that, "  in  some  churches  there  were  several 
Bishops  at  the  same  time  ;  in  others  but  one?  I 
have  already  shown  that  it  was  a  Catholic  maxim, 
M  One  Bishop  in  a  city"  let  the  Presbyters  be  ever  so 
numerous.  Indeed,  when  a  Bishop  was  aged,  a 
coadjutor  was  appointed;  or  when  there  was  a 
powerful  schism,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Donatists,  in 
order  to  effect  a  reconciliation,  the  Bishops  of  the 
schismatics  were  allowed  to  act  in  conjunction  with 
the  Catholic  Bishops ;  and  this  was  the  circumstance 
that  multiplied  Bishops  so  much  in  Africa;  but 
never  were  there  any  churches  that  had  several  Bi- 
shops at  the  same  time,  as  you  assert,  not  only  with- 
out authority,  but  in  opposition  to  all  the  authorities 
of  antiquity. 

You  repeat,  at  the  close  of  this  letter,  the  idle  tale 
of  St.  Patrick's  establishing  Presbyterianism  in  Ire- 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy,         224 

land.  This  fiction,  I  flatter  myself,  has  been  suffi- 
ciently exposed.  That  the  Pope  of  Rome  should 
direct  his  missionary  to  plant  Presbytery  among  the 
converts  to  Christianity  in  that  island,  is  so  mon- 
strously absurd,  that  I  wonder  a  man  of  sense  can 
utter  any  thing  of  the  kind.  But  the  mind  of  man 
is  a  strange  thing.  It  can  see  clearly  enough  when 
the  object  corresponds  with  its  inclination ;  but 
when  otherwise,  a  distinct  perception,  and  a  ra- 
tional decision  are  not  to  be  expected. 

I  have  now,  Sir,  answered  every  thing  of  conse- 
quence, not  only  in  this,  but  in  every  preceding 
letter  ;  and  that  the  precise  point  of  dispute  may  be 
left  clearly  and  strongly  on  the  minds  of  our  read- 
ers, I  will,  in  a  few  words,  again  present  it  to  their 
view. 

The  question  between  us  is,  what  is  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Christian  church  ?  To  prove  it  Epis- 
copal, I  have  quoted  several  passages  from  the  New 
Testament ;  and,  to  show  that  our  interpretation  of 
these  passages  is  correct,  I  have  produced  nume- 
rous testimonies  from  the  primitive  writers.  This 
is  the  only  possible  way  of  deciding  a  question  oi 
fact.  There  has  not  been  a  single  testimony  pro- 
duced by  you  that  says,  Episcopacy  was  not  the 
government  of  the  church  in  the  Apostolic  age  ; 
but  I  have  produced  a  number  of  testimonies  which 
directly  say,  that  Episcopacy  is  a  divine  institution, 
and  a  still  greater  number  which  necessarily  imply 
,it.  The  comparatively  few  passages  which  ydti 
U2 


222  Letter  XX. 

have  produced  from  the  Fathers,  are  expressed  in 
such  vague  and  indefinite  language,  that  unless  we 
interpret  them  by  what  is  clear  and  decisive,  (as 
common  sense  says  we  ought)  we  must  remain  in 
the  dark  as  to  the  meaning.  By  having  recourse 
to  this  rule,  we  make  St,  Jerome  consistent  with 
himself;  and  what  is  of  infinitely  more  consequence, 
we  make  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the 
Fathers  perfectly  consistent.  If  we  abandon  this 
rule,  and  adopt  your  hypothesis,  we  immediately 
set  them  at  variance,  and  present  a  difficulty  to  the 
mind  incapable  of  rational  solution. 

I  have  also  shown,  from  the  nature  of  the  human 
mind,  which  cannot  act  without  a  motive,  and  from 
the  universally  acknowledged  circumstances  of  the 
church  in  the  second  century,  that  a  change  which 
deprived  the  Presbyters  of  their  rights,  could  not 
have  taken  place.  And,  antecedently  to  this  sup- 
posed'change,  I  have  shown  that  the  venerable  Ig- 
natius, whose  writings  have  been  completely  proved 
to  be  genuine  and  authentic,  by  Pearson  and  Ham- 
mond, and  allowed  to  be  so  by  the  great  body  of  the 
learned,  declares  over  and  over  again,  that  Episco- 
pacy is  of  divine  institution.  This  testimony  is  of 
immense  weight,  and  can  never  be  diminished  by 
any  efforts  of  genius,  by  any  subtleties  of  sophistry, 
©r  by  any  plausibility  of  theory. 

It  has  also  been  shown,  that  no  church,  after 
the  most  severe  investigation,  can  be  produced,  in 
which  Episcopal  government  did  not  prevail,  till 


Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         223 

the  sixteenth  century.  The  Armenian  and  Persian 
churches  in  the  East,  those  of  Spain  in  the  West, 
of  Africa  in  the  South,  and  of  Great- Britain  in  the 
North,  submitted  to  Episcopal  regimen,  without  a 
single  exception.  And  the  proof  we  have  for  all  this, 
k  the  universal  testimony  of  thost  writers,  upon 
whose  authority  we  admit  the  canon  of  scripture. 

Here  then  I  would  ask  a  conscientious  Presbyte- 
rian, whether  he  can  in  his  heart  believe,  that  the 
primitive  Saints  and  Martyrs  would  be  so  profligate 
as  to  usurp  the  Episcopal  pre-eminence  in  defiance 
of  the  institution  of  the  Apostles  ?  Whether  they 
would  attempt  this,  not  only  without  any  worldly 
motive,  but  with  a  certainty  of  greater  loads  of 
care  and  affliction,  and  with  the  strongest  probability 
of  a  terrible  death  2  I  would  ask  him,  whether 
men  would  attempt  to  usurp  a  little  spiritual  authority 
with  such  expectations,  and  upon  such  principles  ? 
And  if  it  were  possible  to  conceive  it,  whether  they 
could  prevail  in  so  short  time  over  the  widely  dif- 
fused church  of  Christ;  and  that  too  without  oppo- 
sition, or  one  word  of  complaint  from  the  degraded 
Presbyters?  But  admitting  these  unreasonable  sup- 
positions, I  would  ask  a  conscientious  Presbyte- 
rian, whether  he  ought  to  consider  the  supposition 
of  a  fact,  as  equivalent  to  the  proof  of  it?  The 
fact  still  remains  to  be  proved^  although  we  admit 
the  possibility  of  it. 
I  conclude,  therefore,  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Reeves^ 


224  Letter  XX. 

that  u  Bishop,  Presbyter,  and  Deacon,  were  the 
three  orders  of  the  church  from  the  beginning  of 
the  days  of  John  Calvin,  who,  though  a  wise  and 
learned  man,  showed  his  frailty  first,  by  thrusting 
himself  into  the  sacred  function  without  being  law* 
fully  called;  and,  secondly,  by  drawing  up,  out  of  his 
own  head,  a  new  scheme  of  Ecclesiastical  polity, 
wherein  he  excludes  the  Episcopal  order,  and 
lodges  the  whole  power  of  the  church  in  a  minister 
with  lay-elders ;  and  taking  advantage  of  the  fond- 
ness and  necessity  of  the  people,  and  the  absence 
of  the  Bishop,  made  them  swear  as  absolutely  to 
his  new  scheme,  as  if  every  tittle  of  it  had  been 
dictated  from  Mount  Sinai;  although,  by  his  own 
confession,  but  intimated  in  scripture,  and  this  inti- 
mation never  thought  of  by  any  of  the  ancients, 
nor  any  strictures  of  such  a  form  entertained  in 
any  church  upon  earth  before  his  own  time.  This 
novel  regimen  found  its  way  into  the  French  and 
Dutch  reformed  churches,  and  after  some  time  into 
the  church  of  Scotland;  but  the  church  of  England 
kept  close  to  the  primitive  government,  concluding 
that  we  might  as  well  reform  ourselves  out  of  the 
inferior  orders  of  Presbyter  and  Deacon,  as  that 
of  Bishop.  And  that  if  any  one  of  these  Apos- 
tolic institutions  may  be  nulled  by  human  authority, 
so  might  the  rest,  and  so  we  might  come  to  have  a 
new  form  of  church  government  every  moon,  or,  if 
that  seem  best,  none  at  all.    And,  therefore,  (says 


V 

Rise  and  Progress  of  Episcopacy.         225 

he)  though  I  have  all  imaginable  good  will  and 
charity  for  the  foreign  churches,  who,  under  their 
hands,  have  testified  their  readiness  to  conform  with 
us,  were  they  in  our  place,  and  plead  necessity  for 
their  difference,  yet  being  no  judge,  I  shall  not  take 
upon  me  to  determine  how  far  this  plea  now  will 
justify  or  excuse  them.  But  this  plea  of  theirs  can 
never  reach  our  home  dissenters^  who  have  nothing 
to  object  against  the  moderation  of  our  present  Bi- 
shops (as  Calvin  had  against  those  of  Rome  J  but 
only  that  they  are  Bishops.  And,  therefore,  I  can- 
not think  it  is  either  reasonable  or  lawful,  to  write 
ourselves  out  of  an  Apostolical  institution,  con- 
firmed by  the  concurring  sense  and  practice  of  all 
the  Fathers,  by  a  prescription  of  fifteen  hundred 
years  standing,  and  by  the  judgment  of  our  owti 
Reformers  and  Martyrs.  I  can  never  think  our- 
selves, I  say,  obliged  in  charity  to  write  ourselves 
out  of  this  complicated  authority,  into  a  compliance 
with  such  consciences  as  make  such  Bishops  one 
article  for  schism,  which  their  pretended  patron 
St.  Jerome  makes  decreed  by  the  Apostles  for  the 
extirpation  of  the  seeds  of  schism  all  the  world 
over."* 

The  way  is  now  open  for  me  to  make  a  few  re- 
marks upon  your  concluding  letter. 

Your  first  observation  is,  that  "  the  practical  in- 
fluence of  any  doctrine,  has  been  generally  con 

*  Preface  concerning  the  right  use  of  the  .Fathers. 


226  Letter  XX. 

sidered  as  a  good  test  of  its  truth.  By  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them,  is  a  rule  which  applies  to  princi- 
ples as  well  as  to  men.  Let  us  apply  this  rule  to 
the  case  before  us.  If  Prelacy  be  of  exclusive  and 
unalterable  divine  right ;  if  it  be  so  essential,  that 
there  is  no  true  church,  no  authorized  ministry,  no 
valid  ordinances  without  it ;  if  Episcopal  churches 
alone  are  in  covenant  with  Christ,  in  the  appointed 
road  to  heaven,  and  warranted  to  hope  in  the  pro- 
mises of  God  ;  then  we  may  reasonably  expect  and 
demand  that  all  churches  of  this  denomination 
should  display  more  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  than 
any  other  classes  of  professing  Christians.  But  is 
this  in  fact  the  case  ?  Will  the  friends  of  Prelacy 
undertake  to  show,  that  they  alone  give  this  evi- 
dence that  they  belong  to  Christ  ?  Will  they  evea 
undertake  to  show,  that  Episcopalians  exhibit  in  a 
pre-eminent  degree,  this  practical  testimony,  that 
they  are  the  chosen  generation,  the  peculiar  people, 
who  are  purified  by  the  blood,  and  quickened  by  the 
spirit  of  the  Redeemer?'7 

To  this  I  answer,  first ;  That  the  highest  Episco- 
palians can  claim  no  more  than  a  divine  right  for 
Episcopacy.  '  Precisely  the  same  right  do  Presby- 
terians claim  for  Presbytery.  M  No  ministry,  no 
churchy"  is  a  maxim  with  the  Westminster  divines. 
Now,  the  people  called  Quakers  have  no  ministry. 
They  may  then  ask  you  in  nearly  your  own  words ; 
If  Presbytery  be  of  divine  right ;  if  it  be  so  essen- 
tial, that  there  is  no  true  church  without  it ;   if 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  22  7 

those  churches  only  are  in  covenant  with  Christ 
which  have  a  ministry ;  then  Presbyterians  should 
display  more  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  than  we  do. 
But  is  this  in  fact  the  case  ?  Are  they  more  pious, 
more  peaceable,  more  humble,  and  less  conformed 
to  the  world  than  we  are?"  What,  Sir,  will  you 
say  to  this  ?    Will  you  say,  yes  ?     I  doubt  it. 

I  am  entirely  at  a  loss  to  conjecture  how  you  will 
solve  this  difficulty.  If  you  say,  we  do  not  pretend 
to  have  more  piety  and  virtue  than  the  people  called 
Quakers  ;  then  the  question  will  be,  What  is  the 
advantage  of  your  having  a  ministry  of  divine  insti- 
tution ?  "  The  blessing  of  God  is,  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, most  likely  to  attend  those  institutions  which  are 
most  agreeable  to  his  will;"  and  yet  here  is  a  body 
of  Christians,  who  want  an  essential  part  of  a  Chris- 
tian church,  who  are  as  pious  and  virtuous  as  those 
who  have  it.  How,  Sir,  do  you  solve  the  difficulty  ? 
Will  you  boldly  cut  the  knot,  and  say,  the  Quakers 
are  hypocrites ;  their  virtue  and  piety  are  but  in  ap- 
pearance? You  will  not  venture  to  talk  in  this  man- 
ner ;  for,  to  say  nothing  of  the  uncharitableness  of 
it,  you  will  be  asked,  How  do  you  know  that  they 
are  hypocrites  ?  We  can  only  judge  from  the  life 
and  conversation;  and  they  appear  in  these  respects 
full  as  correct  as  Presbyterians.  How  then  do  you 
obviate  the  difficulty  ?— Oh !  I  perceive  your  man- 
ner of  extricating  yourself. 

You  say  (page  344)  u  It  does  not  affect  the  so- 
lidity of  this  argument,  that  some  churches  which 


228  Letter  XX. 

Presbyterians  consider  as  not  regularly  organized, 
upon  scriptural  principles,  nevertheless  embrace  in 
their  bosom  a  large  portion  of  unaffected  piety.  If 
we  undertook  to  maintain  that  the  Presbyterian 
church  is  the  only  real  church  on  earth,  and  alone 
in  covenant  with  Christ  the  head,  such  a  fact 
would,  indeed,  present  a  difficulty  of  no  easy  solu- 
tion." 

And  do  you  really  think,  that  this  solves  the  dif- 
ficulty? Either  you  admit  that  the  Quakers  belong 
to  the  visible  church,  or  you  do  not.  If  the  former, 
then  there  may  be  a  church  without  sacraments  and 
a  ministry ;  and  if  so,  you  contradict  the  Westminster 
divines,  your  ablest  and  best  writers,  and  what  is 
worse,  the  holy  scriptures.  In  the  latter,  none  are 
considered  as  members  of  Christ's  mystical  body 
who  are  not  baptized  into  the  visible  church.  If 
you  do  not  consider  the  Quakers  as  belonging  to  the 
visible  church,  then  the  difficulty  remains  in  full 
force  against  you.  You  are  precisely  in  the  same 
situation  with  respect  to  that  people,  that  we  are 
with  respect  to  you ;  even  upon  the  supposition  that 
we  do  not  allow  Presbyterians  to  be  members  of  the 
visible  church.  What  right  then  have  you  to  find 
fault  with  Episcopalians,  when  you  set  up  a  claim, 
which  excludes  the  Quakers  from  being  members 
of  Christ's  visible  church?  Do  to  them  as  you  would 
have  us  do  to  you,  and  then  all  will  be  fair  and  equal. 

This  is  reasoning  the  matter  with  you,  even  upon 
the  highest  claims  of  Episcopacy.    If  you  can  solve 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  229 

the  difficulty  which  you  propose,  as  it  respects  the 
^takers-  we  can  adopt  your  mode,  to  solve  the  dif- 
ficulty as  it  respects  you.  Make  the  experiment, 
Sir,  and  I  will  engage  to  follow  your  track  ;  pro- 
vided you  do  not  give  up  the  principle,  that  a  mi- 
nistry is  essential  to  a  Christian  church. 

I  think  I  might  safely  let  the  matter  rest  upon  this 
ground.     But  as  I  wish  to  have  this  point  clearly 
and  fully  understood,  I  will  give  the  real  state  of 
the  case  in  a  few  words.     There  are  two  principal 
divisions  of  Episcopalians.     One  division  believe 
that  Episcopacy  is  of  divine  right,  in  that  strict 
sense,  that  there  can  be  no  valid  administrations 
without  it.     At  the  same  time>  they  do  not  enter- 
tain the  most  distant  thought,  that  the  want  of  it 
will  preclude  men  from  salvation,  when  it  pro- 
ceeds from  necessity,  or  from  honest  error.     The} 
believe  that  such  error  will  be  forgiven,  and  sin- 
cere piety  accepted  in  all  who  profess  the  faith  of 
Christ.     No  charity  can  be  more  extensive  than 
this  ;  and  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  correc;- 
ness  of  the  principle,  no  fault  can  be  found  with  the 
temper  of  the  mind.  They  think,  that  if  Episcopacy 
be  a  divine  institution,  and  there  can  be  no  church 
without  a  ministry,  the  inevitable  consequence  is, 
that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  visible  church. 
And  as  to  the  difficulty  which  you  propose,  they 
do  not  view  it  as  any  difficulty  at  all ;  for  they  say> 
when  the  heart  is  right,  that  grace  which  is  not 
promised  to  unauthorized  administrations,  is  granted 
Vol.  II.  X 


230  Letter  XX. 

by  special  favour ;  so  that  none  will  fail  of  salvation 
when  the  error  is  not  wilful,  or  when  necessity  ex- 
cludes men  from  Episcopal  administrations.  Now, 
whatever  may  be  thought  of  this  reasoning,  it  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  the  only  way  in  which  you  can 
reconcile  your  own  principle,  "  no  ministry,  no  true 
church,"  with  charity,  and  rational  views  of  the 
goodness  and  mercy  of  God. 

The  other  class  of  Episcopalians,  although  they 
believe  Episcopacy  to  have  been  instituted  by  the 
Apostles,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
yet  do  not  consider  it  as  essential  to  the  being  of  a 
church.  Presbyterian  churches  they  consider  as 
very  defective;  but  not  deprived  of  their  church 
character ;  as  excuseable,  when  Episcopacy  cannot 
be  had;  but  schismatical,  when  it  can;  as  irregular 
and  unscriptural  in  their  ministry,  but,  by  no  means, 
devoid  of  a  valid  ministry.  This  class  of  Episco- 
palians have  nothing  to  do  with  your  supposed  dif- 
iiculty.  As  they  do  not  unchurch  dissenters  from 
Episcopacy,  although  they  think  them  blameable, 
and  in  most  cases  schismatical;  as  they  do  not  place 
them  under  uncovenanted  mercy,  they  have  the 
same  channels  of  grace  open  to  them  that  Episcopa- 
lians have,  and,  consequently,  may  be  as  good,  or 
better  than  they,  if  they  are  placed  in  a  more  favour- 
able situation.  It  is  then  only  the  first  class  of 
Episcopalians  that  are  affected  by  what  you  deem  a 
difficulty  of  no  easy  solution.  But  whether  it  be  a 
difficulty  or  not,  you  should  remember,  that  the 


Practical  influence  of  Prelacy*  231 

Westminster  divines  and  yourself  are  as  much  af- 
fected by  it,  in  reference  to  the  Quakers  and  other 
mystic  Christians,  as  the  first  class  of  Episcopalians 
are  with  respect  to  Presbyterians.  If  you  will, 
therefore,  extricate  yourself,  and  they  like  your 
mode  of  doing  it  better  than  their  own,  no  doubt 
they  will  adopt  it;  but  until  you  do,  depend  upon 
it,  they  will  not  think  it  very  modest  in  you  to  call 
upon  them  to  solve  a  difficulty,  in  which  you  are 
as  deeply  involved  as  they  are.  These  arguments 
are  partly  ad  hominem,  and  partly  ad  verecundiam. 

The  first  class  of  Episcopalians,  whatever  may 
be  said  for  the  correctness  of  their  principles,  are, 
at  least,  very  consistent.  They  set  out  precisely 
on  the  same  ground  with  the  Westminster  divines — 
"  no  ministry,  no  true  church."  If,  then,  Episco- 
pacy be  a  divine  institution,  and  none  but  Bishops 
can  communicate  the  sacerdotal  character,  it  follows 
inevitably,  that  there  can  be  no  ministry  without 
them,  and,  consequently,  without  them  no  true 
church.  This  is  the  mode  of  reasoning  of  this  class  of 
churchmen;  and  perhaps  it  is  not  so  easy  to  answer 
it,  as  those  must  suppose,  who  reject  the  principle 
upon  which  it  is  founded.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is 
exactly  the  reasoning  of  the  Westminster  divines, 
and  of  yourself,  Sir.  You  say,*  "  It  is  only  as  far  as 
amj  succession  flows  through  the  line  of  Presi 
that  it  is  either  regular  or  valid.     It  is  d 

♦  Pa^e  847 


232  Letter  XX. 

on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  that  constitutes  a 
scriptural  ordination."  Consequently,  without  the 
■reposition  of  the  hands  of  Presbyters,  there  can 
be  no  ministry ;  and  without  a  ministry,  there  can 
be  no  true  church.  And  none  but  those  who  be- 
long to  the  visible  church  are  entitled  to  covenant 
privileges.  Therefore,  the  Quakers  and  some 
others,  who  have  no  ministry  ordained  by  laying' 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  are  completely 
unchurched.  I  cannot  conceive,  Sir,  how  it  is  pos- 
sible for  you  to  evade  this  consequence  ;  and  if  you 
cannot,  how  strange  is  it  for  you  to  propose  a  diffi- 
culty, which,  if  it  be  really  such,  bears  with  all  its 
force  upon  you,  as  much  as  upon  those  Episcopa- 
lians who  unchurch  Presbyterians.  But  the  other 
class  of  Episcopalians  (as  has  been  already  observ- 
ed) stand  entirely  clear  of  this  difficulty,  because 
their  principles  have  nothing  exclusive  in  them,  at 
least  in  their  view  of  the  matter,  and,  consequently, 
they  place  Episcopal  regimen  on  a  more  liberal 
footing  than  you  do  Presbyterian  ;  for  they  exclude 
nobody  from  visible  church  membership,  but  you 
exclude  Quakers  and  all  those  who  have  not  a 
ministry  ordained  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery.  And  as  you  assert,  that  nineteen 
Episcopalians  out  of  twenty,  are  of  the  second 
class,  then  it  follows  upon  your  own  concession,  that 
in  that  proportion,  churchmen  are  more  liberal  than 
genuine,  consistent  Presbyterians.  Well,  Sir,  be  it 
so,  I  have  no  objection. 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  £33 

Without  attempting  to  determine  which  of  the 
two  classes  of  Episcopalians  is  right,  that  which 
totally  unchurches  all  denominations  which  have  not 
Bishops,  or  that  which,  while  they  maintain  the 
Apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacy,  do,  neverthe- 
less, in  certain  cases,  admit  the  validity  of  Presby- 
terian ordination,  but  in  no  case  its  regularity,  I 
shall  but  just  observe,  that  even  on  the  first  and 
highest  ground,  you  cannot,  with  the  least  consist- 
ency, or  modesty,  make  any  objection.  If  they 
make  Episcopacy  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church, 
so  do  you  a  ministry  ordained  by  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery.  If  they  are  at  a  loss  to  solve  the  dif- 
ficulty, how  it  is  that  God  confers  his  grace  as 
freely  upon  those  who  are  not  members  of  the 
visible  church,  as  upon  those  who  are,  you  are 
equally  at  a  loss.  But  if  you  can  solve  this  diffi- 
culty, so  can  they  in-  the  very  same  manner.  How 
then  is  it,  Sir,  that  you  could  have  so  lost  sight  of 
consistency  and  propriety,  as  to  have  indulged 
yourself  in  such  language  as  you  have,  towards 
those,  as  they  are  commonly  styled,  high-flying 
churchmen  ?  You  place  their  principles  upon  a 
level  with  the  worship  of  images,  and  exhort  vour 
people  to  exercise  patience  towards  those  deluded 
bigots  ;  not  considering  that  you  were  at  the  same 
time  involving  \  ourself  in  the  same  condemnation. 
The  Quaker,  Sir,  can  treat  you  in  the  same  com- 
plimentary manner  with  at  least  as  much  propriety, 
and  as  good  a  grace,  as  you  treat  Episcopalians. 
X2 


234  Letter  XX. 

I  sincerely  wish,  Sir,  that  a  number  of  expressions 
in  your  letters  had  been  forborne.  They  favour 
too  much  of  bitterness,  and  of  that  bigotry  of  which 
you  complain  in  others. 

-  But,  Sir,  after  all,  what  is  this  mighty  difficulty, 
which  is  to  deter  Episcopalians  from  asserting 
that  there  cannot  be  such  a  church  as  Christ  con- 
stituted without  Episcopal  authority  ?  Do  those 
Episcopalians  thereby  exclude  Presbyterians  from 
salvation  ?  Far,  very  far  from  it.  They  declare 
most  readily,  and  delight  in  the  thought,  that  their 
piety  will  be  accepted.  Surely,  Sir,  you  know  this» 
How  then  could  you  say,  that  "  such  persons  are 
to  be  viewed  in  the  same  light  with  those  who  con- 
scientiously believe — that  there  is  no  salvation  out 
of  the  pale  of  the  church  of  Rome  ?"  Are  those 
who  extend  salvation  to  all  denominations  of 
Christians,  and  even  to  the  very  heathen,  to  be 
abused  as  bigots,  and  ranked  with  those  who  con- 
fine it  to  a  particular  pale  ?  Is  such  extensive  cha- 
rity to  be  put  upon  a  footing  with  such  contracted 
bigotry  ?  Are  those  who  ascribe  sincerity  to  the 
piety  of  others,  and  purity  to  their  motives,  to  be 
ranked  with  those  who  admit  no  purity,  and,  of 
consequence,  no  salvation  out  of  their  own  church? 
Surely,  Sir,  you  could  not  have  been  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  usual  benevolent  pulse  of  your  heart, 
when  you  gave  way  to  such  feelings,  nor  of  the 
usual  dictates  of  your  good  sense,  when  you  uttered 
such  expressions.    But  you. must  be. excused,  as 


Practical  Influence  Of  Prelacy.  23^ 

you  had  a  difficult  task  on  hand ;  for  certainly  it  13 
difficult  to  give  plausibility  to  error,  and  to  truth 
the  appearance  of  falshood. 

However  difficult  you  may  think  it  is  to  account 
for  the  Almighty's  extending  his  grace  to  those 
who  are  in  fundamental  error,  yet  as  the  fact  is  cer- 
tain that  he  does  extend  it,  we  ought  not  to  be  too 
curious  in  our  inquiries  into  his  conduct.  The  Judge, 
of  all  the  earth  will  do  right.  He  has  given  his 
church  such  a  constitution  as  he  saw  fit,  and  it  is 
our  duty*  to  conform  to  it.  If  we  err,  and  our  er- 
ror be  not  wilful,  he  will  make  due  allowances  for 
our  honest  misconception  ;  but  we  have  no  right  to 
call  that  a  Christian  church  which  is  materially 
different  from  the  one  he  has  constituted  by  his  Holy 
Spirit.  Still  he  may  and  does  extend  his  grace  and 
mercy  to  such  Christians.  We  are  bound,  but  his 
grace  is  free.  This  is  the  language  of  the  first  class 
of  Episcopalians. 

I  fear  that  I  have  been  too  prolix  upon  this 
point ;  but  I  believe  it  was  necessary-  to  show  how 
inconsistent  you  are  in  this  part  of  the  discussion, 
and  how  unreasonable  in  expecting  from  Episcopa- 
lians a  sacrifice  of  what  they  deem  truth,  because 
the  consequences  bear  hard  upon  others.  If  they 
are  correct  in  their  views  of  the  Christian  church, 
the  consequences,  whatever  they  may  be,  are  not  of 
their  making.  Let  those  look  to  that  who  have 
deviated  from  a  divine  institution. 

Thus,  then,  I  think  it  appeal's,  that  those  who 


S36  Letter  XX. 

carry  Episcopacy  so  far  as  to  pronounce  your  minis* 
try  invalid,  and,  in  consequence,  your  church  funda- 
mentally deficient  in  her  regimen,  carry  the  matter 
no  further  with  you,  than  you  do  with  the  Quakers  j 
and,  therefore,  you  cannot,  with  any  consistency, 
find  fault  with  them.  And  as  to  any  difficulty  that 
you  may  think  attends  the  carrying  of  Episcopacy  to 
such  a  length,  the  very  same  difficulty  attends  the 
divine  right  of  Presbytery ,  when  carried  into  all  its 
consequences.  You  must,  therefore,  either  give  up 
this  mode  of  assailing  Episcopacy,  or  you  must 
change  your  principles.  Consistency  requires  that 
you  should  do  one  or  the  other.  I  now  proceed  to 
consider  a  few  more  passages  in  your  concluding 
letter. 

You  say,  "  The  efficacy  of  Episcopal  govern- 
ment in  securing  the  unity  of  the  church,  in  guard- 
ing against  schism,  and  in  promoting  harmony  and 
peace,  has  been  much  celebrated.  But  is  there 
such  a  peculiar  and  benign  efficacy  in  that  form  of 
Ecclesiastical  order?  I  am  willing  to  refer  the  de- 
cision of  this  question  to  any  man  who  is  acquainted 
with  Ecclesiastical  history?  If  we  consult  Euse- 
bius,  he  will  present  us  with  a  picture  of  the  vio- 
lence, the  strife,  and  the  divisions  among  Bishops, 
and  among  different  portions  of  the  church,  through 
their  means,  which  is  enough  to  make  a  Christian 
weep.  If  we  consult  Gregory  Nazianzen,  he  will 
tell  us,  in  language  before  quoted,  that  Prelacy  *  has 
caused  many  fruitless  conflicts  and  bruises,'  &c.    If 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy,  237 

we  examine  the  history  of  any  Episcopal  church  on 
earth,  we  shall  find  it  exhibiting,  to  say  the  least,  as 
large  a  share  of  heresy,  contention,  and  schism,  as 
any  which  bears  the  Presbyterian  form ;  and  what 
is  more,  we  shall  ever  find  the  Prelates  themselves 
quite  as  forward  as  any  others  in  scenes  of  violence! 
and  outrage."* 

All  this,  Sir,  is  free  enough  to  be  sure ;  and  ra- 
ther out  of  the  common  way  of  proceeding.  When 
men  are  charged  with  violence,  and  a  contentious 
spirit,  and  when  it  is  said,  either  expressly,  or  by 
implication,  that  the  office  they  bear  has  a  tendency 
to  cherish  that  spirit,  every  reasonable  man  would 
expect  such  proofs  as  would  justify  these  bold  asser- 
tions. But  you  give  us  none  at  all;  not  so  much  as 
a  single  passage  from  any  of  the  ancient  historians* 
You  indeed  say,  that  you  are  willing  to  have  the 
matter  tried  by  Ecclesiastical  history ;  but  as  you 
adduce  no  instances  of  the  violence  you  talk  so 
much  about,  it  is  hard  to  be  obliged  to  look  over 
many  folio  volumes  in  Greek  and  Latin,  to  pick  up 
against  ourselves,  instances  of  misbehaviour  in  Bi- 
shops. I  hope,  Sir,  you  do  not  expect  this.  Well 
then,  If  such  a  demand  would  be  highly  unreasona- 
ble, I  will  take  another  method,  and  give  you  a 
sufficient  number  of  instances  of  heresies,  schisms, 
and  contentions  by  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  when 
Bishops  had  no  other  concern  with  them,  than  that 

•  Page  337,  338. 


23S  Letter  XX, 

of  making  a  faithful  and  zealous  opposition  to  them. 
And  upon  this  subject,  very  fortunately,  I  shall 
have  no  trouble ;  for  I  find  it  all  done  to  my  hand  in 
a  sufficient  degree  by  Dr.  Maurice,  in  his  masterly 
answer  to  Baxter.  I  shall  select  from  the  Doctor's 
"  Vindication  of  the  primitive  Church,"  several  in- 
stances, which,  if  they  will  not  make  you  "  weep," 
will  at  least  make  you  sorry — that  Bishops  were  not 
the  authors  of  them.  And  if  this  will  not  defeat 
you  in  this  mode  of  attack,  I  will  freely  acknow- 
ledge my  error ;  and,  as  a  penance  for  it,  I  will 
enjoin  upon  myself  to  read  your  book  over  again. 

First,  then :  All  Ecclesiastical  writers  agree,  that 
Simon  Magus  was  the  author  of  the  first  heresy  in 
the  Christian  church.  You  will  not  say,  I  presume, 
that  Simon  was  a  Bishop.  He  wished  indeed  to  be 
invested  with  that  character,  and  for  that  purpose 
offered  a  sum  of  money  to  the  Apostles.  But  they 
were  too  honest  to  be  bribed  by  his  offer.  "  Thy 
money  perish  with  thee,"  was  their  reply. 

The  next  heretic  we  read  of  was  Menander  ;* 
but  no  mortal  ever  asserted  that  he  was  a  Bishop.    . 

Saturninus  and  Basilides  are  the  next  in  order. 
But  neither  of  them  was  a  Bishop,  nor  of  any  other 
order  in  the  church  that  we  know  of.f 

Next  in  the  list  is  the  heresy  of  the  Nocalaitans^ 
This  is  generally  ascribed  to  Nicolas  the  Deacon. 
So  say  Ireneus  and  Epiphanius.%    This,  however, 

*•  Epiph.  Her.  23.     f  Iren.  lib.  I  chap.  22, 23-     t  Her<  25, 


Prac  ileal  Influence  of  Prelacy.  2  39 

is  disputed.  Be  it  as  it  may,  he  certainly  was  no 
Bishop. 

The  Gnostics  also  had  no  Bishop  for  their  foun- 
der and  promoter.  Carpocrates  was  a  leading  man 
among  them ;  but  he  was  never  invested  with  Apos- 
tolical Episcopacy.* 

Cerinthus,  Ebion,  Valentinus,  Secundus,  Epipha- 
?ies,  Isidorus,  Ptokmceus,  and  Marcus,  were  no  Bi- 
shops ;  nor  were  Colarbasms,  Heracleon.  and  Cerdo, 

The  thirty-ninth  Christian  sect  in  Epiphanzus  is 
that  of  the  Cathari,  or  Puritans.  Novatus^  an  Af- 
rican Presbyter,  was  the  author  of  this  sect;  and 
he  seduced  Novatianus,  a  Roman  Presbyter,  to  join 
with  him  against  his  Bishop.f 

Theodotus,  or  Theodotion,  was  a  learned  man, 
and  orthodox  at  first;  and  so  was  Bardesanes  Syrus; 
but  neither  of  them  was  a  Bishop. 

Montanus  became  the  author  of  an  impious  here- 
sy, because  he  could  not  obtain  the  Episcopal  cha- 
racter. He  blasphemously  declared  that  he  was  the 
Holy  Ghost4 

The  first  heretical  Bishop  that  we  meet  with  in 
Ecclesiastical  history,  is  Paulus  Samosatenus,  who 
succeeded  Demetrianus  in  the  See  of  Antioch,  in 
the  year  262,  and  who  fell  into  heresy  in  the  year 
267.  Here  is  a  long  space  of  time,  more  than 
two  hundred  years,  and  not  one  Bishop  can  be 


*  Clem.  Alex.  lib.  vi. 
t  Epiph.  Aux.  Philast.  J  Enseb.  m  Chron. 


240  Letter  XX. 

produced  who  was  the  author  of  any  heresy.  Bui 
in  that  time,  we  find  a  few  Presbyters,  one  Deacon, 
and  several  laymen,  who  were  authors  of  heresies. 

This  Paulus  was  a  bad  man  as  to  his  morals,  and 
very  heterodox  as  to  his  faith.  He  taught  that 
Christ  was  not  God.*  But  he  was  not  the  first  that 
taught  this  doctrine.  Artemas  and  Theodotus  taught 
it  before  him.-f  Now,  Sir,  be  careful  to  put 
Paulus  upon  your  list  of  heretical  Bishops ;  but,  at 
the  same  time  remember,  that  he  was  deposed  by 
a  council  of  Bishops.  Theodotus  too,  who  was  a 
Presbyter,  was  not  suffered  to  remain  in  the 
Catholic  church.  He  was  excommunicated  by  Vic- 
tor, Bishop  of  Rome, 

We  have  now,  Sir,  enumerated  the  principal 
heresies,  which  sprang  up  in  the  Christian  church, 
for  the  first  three  hundred  years,  and  in  all  that 
time,  we  find,  among  many  thousand  Bishops, 
but  one  heretic.  This  is  really  very  wonderful. 
If  any  man  wished  to  ascertain  the  state  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine  during  that  period,  what  better  proof 
could  he  have  of  it*  purity,  than  this  remarkable 
coincidence  of  principle  among  the  Governors  of 
the  church?  There  is  nothing  like  this  to  be 
produced  in  modern  times,  of  which  some  peo- 
ple talk  in  such  high  strains  of  panegyric.  Now, 
from  a  general  prevalence  of  purity  of  doctrine, 
we  may  very  reasonably  infer  purity  of  morals ; 

*  Euseb.  lib.  vii.  chap.  20.        f  Epiph.  &c 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  241 

otherwise,  what  advantage  has  truth  over  error? 
Add  to  this  the  dreadful  persecution  of  Christians 
during  this  period,  and  we  may  safely  pronounce, 
widiout  inquiring  into  the  fact,  that  the  three  first 
centuries  were  the  golden  period  of  the  church* 
What  then  shall  we  say  to  your  picture  of  it  ?  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  say,  that  it  is  a  perfect  caricature. 

The  following  ages,  it  must  be  acknowledged, 
were  not  so  pure.  The  early  part  of  the  fourth 
century  was  very  afflictive  to  the  church,  in  conse- 
quence of  heresy  and  schism,  which  always  destroy 
its  peace.  Me/etius,  an  Egyptian  Bishop,  the  first 
of  that  order  who  began  a  schism,  forsook  the 
communion  of  the  church,  because,  according  to 
Epiphaniuz,  those  who  fell  from  the  faith  under 
persecution,  were  received  into  it.  But  Atlianasius 
tells  the  story  difFerendy.  He  says,  that  this  Bi- 
shop had  himself  denied  the  faith,  and  being  con- 
demned by  a  Synod  of  Bishops,  he  became  a 
schismatic. 

About  the  same  time  sprang  up  the  DonatisU, 
who,  if  Optatus  be  right,  oweck  their  origin  to  two 
Presbyters,  Botrus and  Celcusius;  although  they  were 
named  from  Donatus,  one  of  their  Bishops,  who 
lived  a  good  while  after  the  rise  of  that  faction.*" 

But  the  sect  that  most  afflicted  the  church  in  the 
fourth  century,  was  that  of  the  Avians;  so  called 
from  Arius,    who,  by  good  providence,    was  no 

*  Aug.  Heref. 

Vol.  II.  Y 


242  Letter  XX. 

more  than  a  Presbyter.  He  taught  that  Christ  was 
not  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father,  and  that 
he  was  not  eternal.  This  doctrine  first  divided  the 
church  of  Alexandria,  and  then  all  the  world ;  a 
few  Bishops  adopting  his  notion,  but  by  far  the 
greater  part  opposing  it.  At  length  a  general 
council  was  called,  by  which  Arms  was  condemned; 
and  out  of  nearly  three  hundred  Bishops,  but  seven- 
teen took  his  part,  and  but  five  of  them  refused  to 
sign  the  decrees  of  the  council.*" 

Constantius  succeeded  his  father  in  the  East, 
and  being  a  friend  to  the  Arians,  that  heresy  gained 
ground  to  a  great  degree.  The  Bishops,  who  were 
generally  opposed  to  it,  were  deposed  and  banished, 
and  the  Sees  filled  with  Arians.  It  was  in  this  state 
of  things  that  so  much  contention  arose  among  the 
Bishops  of  the  church.  The  Arian  Bishops,  sup- 
ported by  the  Emperor,  persecuted  the  orthodox 
Bishops ;  while  these,  as  was  their  duty,  strenu- 
ously opposed  their  heretical  adversaries.  Hence 
arose  that  confusion  and  violence,  which  Gregory 
Nazianzcn  speaks  of  as  existing  in  the  councils  of 
that  age.  Not  Prelacy,  as  you  would  have  your 
readers  believe,  but  heresy,  was  the  principal  cause 
of  it;  and  if  the  Bishops  could  have  had  their 
wish,  or  if  their  efforts  had  been  successful,  the 
church  would  not  have  experienced  the  miseries 
which  resulted  from  that  pestilent  sect. 

*  Socr.  lib.  i.  cap.  6.  and  Soz.  lib.  i.  cap.  2? 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy,  243 

The  sects  that  sprang  out  of  Arianism  were,  most 
of  them,  begun  by  those  that  were  not  Bishops. 
jEtius  was  no  more  than  a  Deacon.*  Eunomius 
and  Macedonius  were  heresiarchs  long  before  they 
were  Bishops.  The  prevalence  of  Arianism,  under 
an  Arian  Emperor,  placed  them  in  Episcopal 
chairs.f 

Another  improver  of  Arianism,  and  leader  of  a 
new  sect,  was  A'erius.  He  was  no  Bishop.  His 
fellow  student,  Eustaihius,  being  raised  to  that  of- 
fice in  preference  to  him,  the  disappointment  rankled 
in  his  breast,  and  he  began  to  disparage  that  Apos- 
tolic order.  u  He  was,"  says  Dr.  Maurice,  "  the 
Cartwright  of  those  times,  and  the  father  of  the 
Presbyterian  parity.  A  notion  brought  into  the 
world  by  the  ambitious  discontent  of  one,  who, 
when  he  could  not  be  a  Bishop  himself,  yet  scorned 
to  seem  inferior  to  any  Bishop." 

The  Audians  were  a  sect  which  sprang  up  about 
the  same  time  with  the  Arians,  headed  by  one 
Audius,  an  Anthropomorphite ;  but  he  was  no  Bi- 
shop, till  he  had  made  a  schism,  and  then  he  was 
made  a  Bishop  by  his  own  party.f 

The  Prisciilianists,  who  were  a  mixture  of  Ma- 
nichees  and  Gnostics,  sprang  up  in  the  West;  but 
their  author  was  not  a  Bishop.  Marcus  is  supposed 
to  have  been  the  founder  of  it ;  but  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  he  had  any  clerical  character.    Priscil 

*  Soz.  lib.  iii  18.  Soc.  lib.  ii.  i  Epiph.  Heres.  71. 

+  Soc.  lib.  iv.  cap.  7-  Athan.  Apol.  2. 


244  Letter  XX. 

his  scholar,  gave  name  to  the  sect ;  but  he  was  no 
more  than  a  layman,  when  he  was  condemned  by 
the  council  of  Saragassa.* 

The  Pelagian  heresy  had  no  Bishop,  either  for 
its  author  or  promoter.  Pelag'ius,  who  gave  it 
being,  was  a  monk  ;  and  Julianas  and  CeksttUS\ 
his  disciples,  were  never  Bishops.t 

Eutyches  was  no  Bishop,  but  a  monk.  This  he- 
resy prevailed  chiefly  among  the  Eastern  monks  j 
who  made  great  disturbances  about  it  after  the 
council  of  Chalcedon. 

The  heresy  of  the  Monothelites  was  an  unavoid- 
able consequence  of  the  doctrine  of  Eutyches.  This 
heresy  is  fathered  upon  Cyrus,  Bishop  of  Alexan-* 
dria,  who  seduced  two  other  Bishops  into  his  opi- 
nion. But  this  departure  from  Catholic  doctrine 
made  no  great  progress,  having  met  with  great  op- 
position from  the  Episcopal  college.  These  were 
the  principal  heresies  of  the  first  five  or  six  centu- 
ries ;  and  we  see  that  no  blame  can  be  attached  to 
the  Bishops;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  are  de- 
serving of  the  highest  commendation. 

a  But  now,"  says  Dr.  Maurice,  "  because  ths 
devil  had  another  game  to  play,  and  started  up  but 
few  heresies  until  those  last  ages ;  let  us  see  what 
sort  of  men  the  authors  of  them  have  been.  The 
Sivelkfeldians,  Anabaptists,  Mennonists,  the  Family 
of  Love,    ^linkers,  Ranters,  and  the  rest  of  the 

4  Scv.  lib.  ii.  in  fin.  f  Ang.  Her.  88. 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  2-45 

modern  sects  ;  did  these  derive  themselves  from 
any  Bishops  ?  Servetus,  was  he  a  Bishop,  or  Soci- 
mis  ?  Or  were  the  Racovian  divines  a  Council  of 
Bishops:"-  Were  Luther  and  Carolastadius  Bi- 
shops ?  It  is  well  known  they  were  not.  Yet  they 
could  quarrel,  and  disgrace  the  Reformation  by  their 
incessant  jarring.  The  latter  was  at  last  banished 
by  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  at  the  instigation  of  Lu* 
then.  Bishops  had  nothing  to  do  with  these  con- 
tentions, which  are  enough  to  make  a  Christian 
"  weep." 

Let  us  now  see  how  it  was  in  the  church  of  Ge- 
neva, that  paragon  o£  Ecclesiastical  regimen. 

Calvin,  the  founder-  of  ministerial  parity,  was 
endowed  by  nature  with  great  talents.  But  he  was 
a  man.  His  new  scheme  of  ministers  upon  equal 
ground,  with  a  mixture  of  Ruling  Elders,  was  to 
do  wonders.  But,  were  his  expectations  realized? 
No ;  Geneva  was  soon  torn  with  factions,  and  this 
gentle  system  of  parity  became  the  source  of  much 
contention.  Calvin  was  rewarded  for  his  services 
with  banishment ;  but  after  some  time  he  was  re- 
stored, and  a  new  trial  given  to  parity.  It  appears 
from  his  own  letters,  that  the  church  in  that  city 
was  miserably  distracted,  although  there  was  not  a 
Bishop  within,  its  atmosphere.  The  return  of  Cal- 
vin evinced  again  the  gentle  sway  of  Presbyterv. 
CastelliOy  a  man  of  great  learning,  was  soon  expelled^ 

*  Vind.  p.  Z03. 

Y2 


246  -     Letter  XX. 

at  the  instigation  of  the  Reformer.  A  violent  con- 
test then  took  place  between  him  and  the  senate 
about  the  election  of  a  minister.  It  produced  al- 
most sedition.  Calvin's  quarrels  with  Peri  mis  pro- 
ceeded to  such  a  length,  that  the  council  became 
furious  against  one  another.  And  what  do  you 
think  was  the  cause  of  it?  Why,  Perimis  thought 
it  was  no  harm  to  recreate  himself  now  and  then 
with  dancing.  But  Calvin,  although  no  Bishop, 
played  the  tyrant,  and  forbad  that  amusement  upon 
pain  of  excommunication.  Per  inns  was  not  to  be 
treated  in  that  manner.  He  opposed  such  tyranny; 
and  two  of  the  ministers  who  joined  with  him 
were  turned  out  of  their  livings.  The  contention 
became  general  throughout  the  city,  and  the  com- 
mon council,  taking  different  sides,  almost  cut  one 
another's  throats.  Many  more  instances  of  tumults 
might  be  adduced  as  proofs  of  the  gentleness  of  pa- 
rity. One  person  was  put  to  death  for  libelling 
Calvin.  Another  was  banished  the  city  for  preach- 
ing against  Predestination.  Servetus  was  burned 
for  heresy.  So  much  for  the  mother  church  of 
Presbytery. 

Switzerland zho  fared  no  better  under  this  parity 
yegimen.  Dr.  Maurice  says,  u  Erastns  having  pub- 
lished his  Theses  of  excommunication,  was  confuted 
by  Beza ;  yet  there  remained  still  several  ministers 
dissatisfied;  as  BuUinger,  Gualter,  and  divers  others. 
This  occasioned  very  great  jealousies  between  the 
several  parties,  and  it  had  almost  come  to  a  run- 


Practical  hifiuence  of  Prelacy,  24F 

tttre.  The  churches  of  the  Palatinate  were  no  less 
shaken  with  this  new  controversy,  and  the  zealots 
ibT  this  government  and  discipline  took  all  occa- 
sions publicly  to  maintain  them  ;  but  the  prudence 
of  the  Prince  prevented  the  mischiefs  which  threat- 
ened his  churches  from  this  question.  Builingery 
m  a  letter  dated  March  10,  15T4,  and  Gualtcr,  in 
some  letters  of  his  to  the  Bishops  of  London  and 
Ely,  and  several  other  eye  witnesses,  do  sufficiently 
testify  the  lamentable  condition  of  those  reformed 
churches,  and  the  confusion  which  Presbyterian 
government  brought  upon  them."* 

The  Geneva  platform  was  adopted  by  the  re- 
formed in  France,  The  constant  persecution  that 
church  was  under,  and  the  bloody  wars  they  had 
to  maintain  with  the  Catholics,  kept  them,  of  ne- 
cessity, more  united  than  their  neighbours.  But 
notwithstanding  the  heavy  pressure  upon  them, 
parity  could  not  preserve  them  in  peace.  New  and 
dangerous  opinions  in  religion  were  continually 
started,  and  it  required  all  the  exertions  of  the  pru- 
dent Du  Plessis,  and  a  few  more  of  his  character, 
to  keep  the  church  in  any  tolerable  degree  of  tran- 
quillity. 

Holland  to,  where  parity  reigned  in  perfection, 
and  the  face  of  a  Bishop  was  not  to  be  seen,  exhi- 
bited a  sad  scene  of  distraction.  a  The  church 
government  of  that  country,"  says  Dr.  Maurice^ 

*  Vind.  p.  37$,  w  9. 


34*  Letter  XX. 

was  not  established  without  great  trouble  and  ditti- 
culty,  and  occasioned  no  small  disturbance."*  The 
civil  magistrates  and  the  ministry  were  constantly 
at  variance.  Synod  after  synod  was  convened,  and 
they  did  more  harm  than  good.  If  these  synods 
had  been  Episcopal,  we  should  have  heard  enough 
about  their  contentions  ;  but,  by  good  fortune,  they 
were  all  composed  of  parity  men. 

But  these  disputes  were  not  of  great  moment,  in. 
comparison  of  what  followed.  The  Arminian 
schism  threw  that  church  into  violent  convulsions,- 
For  several  years  there  was  nothing  but  conference 
after  conference,  and  synod  after  synod.  At  last 
it  came  to  tumult,  and  sedition,,  and  bloodshed. 
A  general  synod  was  then  resolved  on:  it  met,  at 
Dort.  The  Remonstrants  were  condemned,  and 
these  poor  people,  among  whom  were  some  of  the 
most  learned  men  of  the  age,  were  treated  with  the 
greatest  severity.  Some  of  the  ministers  who 
would  not  subscribe,  were  banished,  and  some  were 
imprisoned.  In  short,  it  was  a  sad  scene.  This 
business  was  conducted,  not  under  Episcopal  regi- 
men, but  under  the  mild  sway  of  Presbytery. 

"  And  as  these  Presbyterian  churches  have  been 
afflicted  with  schisms  and  contentions,  so  they  have 
been  sensible  of  the  mischiefs  of  heresy.  In  them, 
ministers  have  no  great  revenues,  nor  dignities, 
nor  power,  and  there  are  no  Bishops ;    and  yet 

*  Vind .  p.  184. 


Practical  Influence  cf  Prelacy,  249 

heresies  make  a  3hift  to  thrive.  Arians,  Socini* 
ems,  Mennonists,  and  others,  abound,  and  are  pert:- 
naciou3."* 

But,  perhaps,  there  is  no  church  which  has  felt 
the  mischiefs  of  parity  more  than  that  of  Scotland, 
"  The  concord  of  that  church,"  says  my  author, 
"  was  much  greater  while  it  continued  under  Su- 
perintendents and  Bishops,  than  it  has  been  since 
Andrew  Melvil  disturbed  it  with  the  perfection: 
of  the  Geneva  discipline  and  government.  Whafc 
schisms  there  arose  in  the  late  times  between  the 
disciplinarians  and  the  rest,  and  what  disturbances 
the  same  sort  of  men  have  given  of  late,  is  too  well 
known  to  need  a  relation,  and  the  field  conventicles 
still  witness. "f  It  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  his- 
torical truth  to  give  the  least  intimation  that  the 
u  unity  of  the  church"  is  preserved  by  Presbyterian 
regimen.  "  Is  this  proof,"  asks  Dr.  Hobart,  "  to 
be  found  in  the  almost  infinite  number  of  sects, 
which  sprang  from  Presbytery  in  the  time  of  Oliver 
Cromwell  ?  Or  does  this  proof  exist  in  the  state  c£ 
the  Presbyterian  churches  in  Scotland,  or  in  this 
country  ?  In  Scotland,  the  Seceders  are  a  numerous 
body,  who  separated  from  the  parent  church,  charge 
ing  her  with  being  a  corrupt  church..  We  find 
there  that  Presbyterian  government  did  not  pre- 
serve the  visible  unity  cf  the  church.  Was  unity 
preserved  among  these  Seceders,  who  carried  with 

.*  Maurice,  p,  390,  391.  f  Vind.  p.  393. 


250  Letter  XX. 

them  Presbyterian  government,  perfect  equality  of 
rank  among  ministers?  In  the  space  of  a  few  years 
after  the  secession,  they  split  into  the  two  sects  of 
Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  ;  the  former  so  called 
from  their  submitting  to  what  is  called  the  Burgher 
oath,  which  the  latter  refuse  to  take,  as  inconsistent 
with  the  principles  of  the  secession.  Here  then 
are  three  distinct  Presbyterian  churches,  who  form- 
ally excommunicated  one  another,  and  disclaim  all 
church  fellowship.  Admirable  specimen  of  the 
efficacy  of  Presbyterian  government  in  preserving 
the  visible  unity  of  the  church!  But  this  is  not  alL 
In  Scotland,  there  is  a  fourth  Presbyterian  church, 
called  the  Relief  church,  so  denominated  from  their 
having  relieved  themselves  from  the  patronage,  by 
which  livings  are  conferred  in  the  established 
church.  And,  last,  though  not  least  of  all,  the 
Reformed  Presbyterian  church,  commonly  called 
Covenanters,  who  boast  that  they  alone  maintain  the 
genuine  Presbyterian  principles,  and  are  the  purest 
church  on  the  face  of  the  earth."* 

w  Nearly  the  same  divisions  are  found  among 
Presbyterians  in  this  country,  as  subsist  in  Scot- 
land.  There  are  several  denominations  of  them 
professing  subjection  to  distinct  ecclesiastical  judi- 
catories, and  some  of  them  refusing  church  fellow- 
ship with  the  others»"f  There  are  also  numerous 
congregations  in  New-England,  who  are,  as  to  or- 

*  Apol.  p.  221,  222.  t  Ibid.  p.  222,  224. 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  25 1 

dination,  Presbyterian,  although  as  to  government 
Congregational;  and  they  also  have  had  frequent 
contentions  and  numerous  schisms.  So  that  look 
where  we  will,  since  the  Reformation,  and  we  shall 
find  parity  the  fruitful  source  of  confusion  in  the 
church.  No  government  indeed  can  prevent  this 
altogether.  The  nature  of  man  is  so  depraved  ;  he 
is  so  much  under  the  sway  of  pride,  and  selfishness, 
and  obstinacy,  that  offences  of  this  sort  must  come. 
But  some  governments,  in  their  very  nature,  are 
better  calculated  to  preserve  peace,  and  prevent 
schism,  than  others.  That  appears  to  me  to  be 
strikingly  the  case  with  the  Episcopal  regimen. 
Look  at  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country,  and 
you  will  find  it  one  in  its  form,  in  its  ordination, 
and  in  its  worship.  It  is  the  same  in  England,  in 
Ireland,  in  Scotland,  and  in  Sxveden  and  Denmark, 
What  an  inestimable  advantage  is  this !  If  a  schism 
should  take  place,  it  is  a  difficult  matter  to  induce  a 
Bishop  to  violate  the  unity  of  the  church.  In  coun- 
tries where  there  is  an  establishment,  it  scarcely 
ever  occurs;  and  even  where  there  is  no  establish- 
ment, the  degradation  and  loss  of  character  that 
ensue,  and  the  almost  impracticability  of  preserv- 
ing the  succession,  are  deterring  circumstances. 
But  among  Presbvterians  these  things  are  conti- 
nually occurring.  A  turbulent  man  can  at  any  time 
make  a  schism,  and  as  there  is  not  the  least  diffi- 
culty with  respect  to  ordination,  a  Presbytery  of 
some  sort  or  other  being  easily  formed,  the  circum- 


f&%  Letter  XX. 

stance  which  is  attended  with  so  much  difficulty  to 
Episcopalians,  who  are  disposed  to  be  schismatical, 
is  not  attended  with  the  slightest  inconvenience  to 
Presbyterian  schismatics.  They  may  be  schisma- 
tics, and  Presbyterians  still.  But  when  Episcopa- 
lians are  guilty  of  schism,  they  scarcely  ever  retain 
that  character,  but  in  almost  every  instance  have 
recourse  to  ordination  by  Presbyters.  This  is  not 
an  imaginary  advantage  which  the  Episcopal  regi- 
men possesses.  Look  at  the  Episcopal  churches 
throughout  the  world,  and  it  will  be  found  to  be  a 
matter  of  fact,  that  where  Episcopacy  is  abandoned, 
there  schisms  and  sects  spring  up  like  mushrooms. 
When,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  that  Apostoli- 
cal regimen  was  abolished  in  England,  upwards  of 
sixty  different  sects,  according  to  Edwards,  a  Pres- 
byterian divine,  distracted  that  unhappy  country. 
But  as  soon  as  Episcopacy  was  restored,  they  gra- 
dually died  away,  and  left  behind  them  but  five  or 
six  of  the  more  decent  and  sober  kind.  In  Scotland 
too,  it  was  pretty  much  in  the  same  way.  As  soon 
as  Melvil  got  his  favourite  Geneva  platform  intro- 
duced, schisms  began,  and  they  have  not  ended  to 
this  day;  and  what  is  more,  never  will,  as  long  as 
parity  prevails. 

When  we  attend  to  the  operations  of  our  own 
minds,  we  find  them  almost  intuitively  admitting 
the  expediency  of  superior  ranks  in  communities 
-of  every  kind.  What  has  always  been  the  common 
sentiment,  and  the  common  practice  of  the  world, 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  256 

must  be  correct.  In  matters  of  taste,  in  moral  prin- 
ciples, and  in  political  science,  it  is  allowed  to  be  so. 
Why  is  nature,  and  the  common  sense  of  mankind, 
to  be  violated  in  the  government  of  the  Christian 
church?  We  do  not  cease  to  be  men  as  soon  as  we 
become  Christians.  There  is  enough  of  pride,  ambi- 
tion, and  perverseness,  in  both  priests  and  people,  to 
need  all  those  checks  which  the  wisdom  of  ages  has 
found  necessary,  to  preserve  peace  and  harmony  in 
religious  communities.  History  is  uniform  in  her 
report  upon  this  subject.  The  religion  of  the  Pa- 
triarclis,  of  the  Jems,  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans, 
of  the  Persians,  of  the  Egyptians,  of  the  Druids, 
of  the  Mahometans,  in  short,  of  every  nation  that 
deserves  to  be  so  called,  had  its  superior  and  inferior 
priests  ;  and  we  know,  that  in  one  instance  the  Al- 
mighty expressly  enjoined  this  gradation.  If,  then, 
the  common  sense  of  mankind  be  considered  as  a 
sure  test  of  truth;  if  the  experience  of  ages  has  sanc- 
tioned imparity  in  the  ministers  of  religion,  if  God 
himself  expressed  his  approbation  of  it,  by  esta- 
blishing it  among  his  peculiar  people,  the  jfcxvs,  we 
may  very  reasonably  conclude,  tha£  Jesus  Christ 
would  not  act  in  direct  opposition  to  the  voice 
of  nature,  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  and 
to  the  example  set  him  by  his  heavenly  Father. 
And  when  we  add  to  these  analogical  and  a  priori 
arguments,  the  accumulated  evidence  that  has  been 
adduced  in  proof  of  me /act.  I  see  not  what  there 
is  wanting  to  convince  an  unprejudiced  mind,  that 
Vol.  II.  Z 


254  Letter  XX. 

Episcopacy  is  an  Apostolical  and  divine  institu- 
tion. 

One  more  letter,  Sir,  and  I  shall  take  my  leave 
of  this  subject  for  the  present. 


(     255     ) 


BETTER  XXI. 


&ev.  Sir, 

jt-OU  go  on  in  the  same  strain  of  unqualified  in- 
vective against  Bishops;  not  recollecting  that  every 
thing  with  which  you  charge  them,  may  be  retorted 
upon  Presbytery  in  a  tenfold  degree.  You  say,  "  If 
we  examine  the  history  of  any  Episcopal  church 
on  earth,  we  shall  find  it  exhibiting,  to  say  the 
least,  as  large  a  share  of  heresy  r  contention,  and 
schism,  as  any  which  bears  the  Presbyterian  form; 
and,  what  is  more,  we  shall  ever  find  the  Prelates 
themselves  quite  as  forward  as  any  others  in  scenes 
of  violence  and  outrage." 

These  charges  could  not  have  proceeded  from  a 
proper  motive.  If  they  were  even  well  founded, 
they  ought  not  to  have  been  advanced.  Religion  can 
derive  no  benefit  from  criminations  of  this  kind,  nor 
did  your  argument  require  the  introduction  of  the 
subject.  I  fear  you  were  not  under  the  influence  of 
your  usual  meekness  of  spirit,  when  you  committed 
to  paper  several  passages  in  your  book.  With  an 
-appearance  of  much  candor  and  moderation,  every 
now  and  then  expressions  drop  from  your  pen, 
which  show  that  all  is  not  right.     I  am  sorry    to 


256  Letter  XXL 

make  these  observations;  out  when  a  man  advances 
Hi  founded,  and,  at  the  same  time,  severe  things,  he 
has  no  right  to  expect  that  they  will  be  passed  over 
in  silence. 

Before  you  indulged  yourself  in  charges  of  this 
serious  nature,  you  ought  to  have  refreshed  your 
memory  with  a  perusal  of  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian church.  If  you  had,  you  would  have  found 
but  one  Bishop  a  heretic  for  the  first  three  hun- 
dred years ;  and  very  few,  in  any  age,  in  com- 
parison of  Presbyters  and  laymen.  And  as  to  vio- 
lence and  outrage,  I  am  totally  at  a  loss  to  deter- 
mine what  you  mean,  and  at  what  church  you 
point.  I  cannot  think  that  you  have  our  church  in 
view,  or  the  moderate  church  of  England,  or  of 
Ireland,  or  the  Episcopal  church  in  Scotland,  or  the 
church  of  Sweden,  or  of  Denmark,  or  of  the  Mo- 
ravians* What,  Sir,  do  you  mean  ?  When  you  tell 
us,  you  wTill  most  probably  receive  an  answer. 

I  have,  in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  several 
times  expressed  my  astonishment  at  your  manner 
of  quoting  authors,  and  at  your  wide  departure 
from  well  authenticated  facts.  You  give  us  another 
instance.  You  inform  us,  that  Eusebhis  gives  a  sad 
picture  of  the  divisions  among  Bishops ;  but  you 
take  care  not  to  tell  us  in  what  part  of  his  history 
that  picture  is  to  be  found.  I  have  looked  over  his 
account  of  the  state  of  the  church  in  the  early  part 
of  the  fourth  century;  and  so  far  from  finding  a 
great  corruption  of  morals,  I  am  astonished  at  the 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  2  5 1 

faith  and  patience  displayed  by  all  ranks  of  Chris- 
tians, under  sufferings  the  most  appalling  to  human 
nature.  Among  these  Christians,  he  gives  a  long 
list  of  illustrious  Bishops,  who  endured  the  most 
excruciating  tortures,  rather  than  renounce  their 
God  and  Saviour.  Read,  Sir,  his  account  of  the 
Dioclesian  persecution,  and  perhaps  you  will  feel  m 
your  heart  some  tenderness,  even  for  Bishops. 

You  have  given  us,  Sir,  a  very  unwarrantable 
account  of  the  Nicene  council ;  and  to  have  some 
colour  for  your  representation,  you  say,  in  a  note, 
p.  330,  that  Gregory  Nazianzen  "  speaks  of  the 
unprincipled  ambition  and  shameful  conduct  of  the 
clergy  of  that  council."    When  I  see  the  passage 
which  gives  that  information,  I  shall  not  be  dis- 
posed to  doubt  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  works 
of  Gregory;  but  then  I  shall  oppose  to  it  the  ac- 
count which   Eusebius   gives  us  of  that   council. 
He  was  a  member  of  the  council,  and  must,  there- 
fore, have  known  more   about  it  than   Gregory^ 
who  lived  fifty  years  after  the  event.     Eusebius 
says  nothing,  that  I  ean  find,,  about  u  unprincipled 
ambition   and    shameful   conduct."      If    you   will 
consult  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  third  book, 
you  will  find  that  nothing  occurred  inconsistent 
with  gravity  and  decorum.     He  mentions,  indeed, 
an  undue  degree  of  warmth  that  appeared  in  some 
of  the  members,  and  some  instances  of  personal 
reflections,  which  the  Emperor,  who  was  present, 
immediately  checked.    Arianim^  and  the  time  of 
Z3 


-253  Letter  XXI. 

keeping  Easter,  were  the  most  material  points  de- 
bated in  that  council,  and  the  first  in  particular  was 
very  interesting  :  of  course  it  would  excite  warmth, 
and  warmth  generally  produces  improprieties  ;  but 
none  occurred,  according  to  Eusebius,  but  what  the 
subjects,  and  the  number  of  the  members  present, 
would  naturally  produce;  none  that  would  justify 
your  assertion,  that  the  clergy  of  that  council  were 
men  of  u  unprincipled  ambition,  and  shameful  con- 
duct." 

When  I  read  the  account  which  Eusebius  has 
given  of  that  council,  and  the  canons  which  were 
made  by  it,  I  cannot  perceive*  in  your  representa- 
tion, the  least  trace  of  moderation,  or  conformity 
to  facts.  I  should  think  that  men  who  could  enact 
such  canons  as  the  following,  must  be  pure  them- 
selves, and  very  zealous  to  promote  purity  in 
others.  The  second  canon  ordains,  that  "  those 
who  shall  be  convicted  of  any  crime,  shall  be  de- 
prived of  their  ecclesiastical  functions."  The  third 
forbids  "  Bishops,  Priests,  Deacons,  and  other 
clergymen,  to  keep  women  in  the  house  with  them, 
excepting  those  o£  whom  there  can  be  no  suspi- 
cion." The  ninth  ordains,  "  that  those  Priests 
shall  be  degraded,  who  are  found  either  to  have 
sacrificed,  or  to  have  been  guilty  of  other  crimes 
before  their  ordination."  The  fifteenth  forbids 
'*  the  translation  of  Bishops  and  Priests,"  and  or- 
dains "  that  those  who  shall  be  translated,  shall  re- 
turn to  their  first  church."    The  seventeenth  or- 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy*  259 

dains,  "  that  clergymen  who  are  usurers,  or  who 
take  sordid  gain,  shall  be  deposed."*  These  ca- 
nons look  as  if  the  Bishops  of  that  council  were 
men  of  virtue  and  religion,  and  not  ambitious  and 
unprincipled,  as  you  represent  them.  Add  to  this, 
that  they  had  but  lately  come  out  of  a  most  dread- 
ful persecution,  which  generally  purifies  both  priests 
and  people;  and  then  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
you  have  given  a  grossly  erroneous  account  of  the 
council  of  Nice,  and  the  Bishops  of  the  early  part 
of  the  fourth  century. 

I  should  not,  Sir,  take  any  notice  of  your  quota* 
tion  from  Dr.  Oxven,  were  it  not  to  show  your 
readers  how  strangely  you  have  hooked  yourself 
upon  one  of  the  horns  of  a  dilemma.  "  The  first 
express  attempt,"  says  the  learned  Dr.  Owen,  "  to 
corrupt  and  divide  a  church,  made  from  within  it- 
self, was  that  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  made  by 
Thebulis,  because  Simon  Cleopas  was  chosen  Bi- 
shop, and  he  was  refused.  The  same  rise  had  the 
schisms  of  the  Novation*  and  Dciiatists,  the  here- 
sies of  Arius  and  others."  Now,  Simon  Cleopas 
was  either  a  diocesan,  or  a  congregational  Bishop* 
If  a  diocesan,  then  you  give  up  the  point,  and  ac- 
knowledge that  kind  of  Episcopacy  to  be  an  Apos- 
tolic institution.  If  a  congregational  Bishop,  then 
I  would  be  glad  to  know,  what  the  conduct  of  The- 
bulis has  to  do  with  diocesan  Episcopacy.    Dr.  Owen, 

•  Du  Pin's  Ec.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  252,  253. 


269  Letter  XXI. 

may  have  been  a  learned  man;  but  if  this  specimen 
be  any  proof,  he  was  not  a  reasoner.  And  how 
you  could  so  far  forget  yourself  as  to  quote  with 
approbation  a  passage,  which  implies  either  a  dere- 
liction of  your  hypothesis,  or  a  circumstance,  which, 
if  it  has  any  force,  lies  entirely  against  yourself, 
can  be  accounted  for  in  no  other  way,  than  by  sup- 
posing that  your  zeal  obscured  your  understanding. 
What  you  say  from  page  339  to  341,  is  only  a 
repetition  of  what  you  say  in  the  first  part  of;  the 
letter;  to  which  I  have  made  a  reply  in  my  last. 
But  it  may  be  well  to  take  notice  of  your  mode  of 
answering  an  obvious  objection  to  your  reasoning. 
Your  position  is,  that  those  who  belong  to  a  true, 
visible  church,  ought  to  be  better  than  those  who 
do  not.  To  this  I  have  shown^  that  the  Quaker 
can  talk  precisely  in  the  same  manner  with  respect 
to  Presbyterians,  that  you  do  with  respect  to  Epis- 
copalians j  and  that  there  is  no  possible  way  for  you 
to  break  the  force  of  the  retort.  This  alone  is  quite 
sufficient  to  impose  silence  upon  you,  without  ad- 
ding another  syllable ;  for  the  reasoning  of  the  Qua- 
ker, upon  the  Presbyterian  principle,  u  no  ministry, 
no  true  church,"  is  perfectly  logical.  But  other 
modes  of  reasoning  may  be  adopted  by  us.  I  ask 
you,  how  do  you  determine  that  the  members  of 
our  church,  when  placed  in  equally  favourable  cir- 
cumstances, are  not  better  than  the  members  of 
your  church  ?  Will  you  say,  I  can  see  with  my  eyes 
and  hear  with  my  ears,  and  cannot  perceive  that 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  261- 

ihey  are  a  tittle  better  than  we  ?  But,  Sir,  have  we 
not  eves  and  ears  as  well  as  you  ?  And  are  they 
not  as  good  as  yours  ?  Now,  suppose  their  report 
should  be,  that  we  are  betterthan  you,  what  would 
you  say  to  it  ?  I  cannot  see  what,  but  that  you  do- 
not  think  so.  But  suppose  we  do,  who  is  to  de- 
cide the  point?  Can  any  created  being  do  it?  I 
believe  not. 

I  hope  I  shall  not  be  misunderstood  upon  this 
point.  I  make  no  claim  for  Episcopalians  to  supe- 
rior goodness.  I  only  put  the  matter  upon  this 
ground  for  the  sake  of  argument ;  and  to  show  the 
weakness  of  what  you  seem  to  think  conclusive 
reasoning.  In  truth,  the  whole  is  mere  assump- 
tion. 

Another  mode  of  reasoning  used  by  us  is,  that 
there  may  be  very  correct  principles,  and  yet  not  a 
suitable  practice.  But  you  say,  this  "  is  merely  an 
evasion  of  the  argument."  And  again:  "  We  con- 
tend that  there  is,  and  must  ever  be,  more  virtue- 
and  holiness  in  the  church  of  Christ,  than  out  o£ 
it."  Then  it  will  follow,  as  you  unchurch  the  Qua- 
kers by  making  a  ministry  essential  to  a  true  church, 
that  the  objection  in  the  mouth  of  a  Quaker  against 
you,  is  as  strong  as  the  same  objection  in  the  mouth 
of  a  Presbyterian  against  us.  You  ought  then  in 
reason  to  satisfy  the  Quaker,  before  you  demand 
of  us  to  satisfy  you. 

You  go  on — "  Nor  do  we,  by  taking  this  ground, 
furnish  either  an  infidel  or  an  heretic  with  a  handle 


262  Letter  XXI. 

against  us."  Why  not?  Because,  "  as  long  as  he 
could  only  with  truth  say, 4  some  of  you,  Christians, 
are  as  bad  as  infidels,'  I  would  confidently  reply, 
they  are  not  Christians  but  hypocrites  ;  for  if  they 
had  any  portion  of  the  spirit  of  their  Master,  they 
would  not  act  thus.  But  if  he  could  really  make  it 
appear  that  Christians  are  in  general,  and  as  a  body, 
in  no  respect  better  than  infidels,  he  would  certainly 
establish  his  argument."  And  do  you  really  think, 
Sir,  that  these  are  parallel  cases  ?  Is  there  no  dif- 
ference between  infidels  and  professing  Christians 
who  have  not  a  valid  ministry  ?  Have  not  these 
the  Bible  to  regulate  their  principles,  and  improve 
them  in  virtue  and  piety?  Infidels  reject  this 
source  of  information  altogether.  They  therefore 
can  have  no  knowledge  of  God,  but  by  their  own 
unassisted  reason  ;  and  what  a  fallible  guide  that 
is,  the  history  of  mankind  sufficiently  evinces. 
Were  a  Christian  in  a  situation,  in  which  he 
could  not  attend  any  public  worship,  but  had  to 
rely  entirely  upon  his  Bible  for  instruction,  we  might 
reasonably  suppose  that  he  would  be  a  better  man 
than  the  infidely  who  rejects  that  source  of  instruc- 
tion. Otherwise,  what  advantage  has  good  in- 
struction over  bad?  What  advantage  has  revelation 
over  reason  ?  In  that  book  he  would  find  that  the 
wrath  of  God  is  revealed  against  all  unrighteousness  ; 
that  re?nission  of  sins  is  preached  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  in  no  other  name  whatever. 
Would  not  this  (the  blessing  of  God  attending  it) 


Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy.  26S 

have  a  powerful  tendency  to  raise  him  from  a  death 
of  sin  to  a  life  of  righteousness?  It  certainly  wouldc 
But  the  infidel,  by  rejecting  the  Bible,  foregoes  this 
inestimable  advantage.  He  trusts  to  his  own  falli- 
ble reason,  which  can  never  assure  him,  that,  were 
he  even  to  repent  of  his  past  transgressions,  and 
live  righteously  for  the  future,  this  would  recom- 
mend him  to  the  favour  of  God,  and  give  him  a 
reasonable  hope  of  eternal  happiness.  Reason  never 
produced  this  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the  hea- 
then. They  were  without  hope,  and  without  God  in 
the  world.  Here  there  is.  a  striking  difference  be- 
tween the  case  of  the  infidel  and  that  of  the  Chris- 
tian, although  the  latter  were  in  a  situation  in  which 
he  could  not  attend  any  kind  of  public  instruction 
and  worship.  But  when  the  Christian  regularly 
attends  public  worship,  although  the  ministers  who 
officiate  have  not  received  a  valid  ministry,  yet  the 
benefit  of  joining  in  the  prayers  and  praises  of  a 
religious  assembly,  and  the  moral  and  religious 
lessons  that  are  taught  from  the  pulpit,  must,  in 
reason,  be  considered  as  very  great. 

Still  farther.  In  a  church  in  which  there  is  not 
a  scriptural  and  valid  ministry,  both  those  who  ad- 
minister what  are  deemed  sacraments,  and  those 
who  receive  them,  may  receive  considerable  benefit 
from  them.  And  as  the  ministers  who  officiate 
.sincerely  believe  that  they  have  a  right  to  do  so, 
and  the  people  also  have  the  same  persuasion, 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  a  God  of  mercy  will 


263  Letter  XXI. 

pardon  their  involuntary  error,  and  dispense  that 
grace  to  their  well  meant  endeavour  to  do  his  will, 
which  is  not  attached  by  promise  to  unwarranted 
administrations.  If  you  should  not  deem  these  ob- 
servations satisfactory,  you  will  be  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  excluding  from  divine  grace  and  mercy, 
those  Christians  who  have  no  ministry. 

Once  more,  Sir — The  whole  of  your  reasoning 
upon  this  point  appears  to  me  to  rest  upon  a  false 
foundation.  It  supposes  that  the  ministry  is  of  the 
essence  of  religion.  There  may  be,  and  we  know 
there  is,  faith  in  Christ,  and  love  to  God  and  man, 
which  are  the  essentials  of  Christianity,  where  there 
is  no  ministry.  A  ministry  is,  in  my  opinion,  essen- 
tial to  a  visible  church.  In  this  I  believe  Episcopa- 
lians and  Presbyterians  are  generally  agreed.  It  is, 
therefore,  of  great- importance  to  preserve  it.  What 
God  has  appointed,  no  man,  no  church  has  a  right 
to  reject.  Still  some  good  people  may  be  so  un- 
happy as  to.  err  upon  this  point.  Of  the  cause  of 
their  error  we  are  not  competent  judges.  We  must 
leave  them  to  him  who  judge th  righteously. 

Upon  the  whole  matter,  in  the  words  of  Dr. 
Hobart,  "  He  who  worketh  all  things  according  to 
the  council  of  his  own  will,  may  dispense  with  his 
own  institutions,  and  depart  from  the  settled  order 
of  the  economy  of  grace.  It  may  please  him  to 
bless  the  sincere  exertions  and  labours  of  those  who 
reject  the  positive  institutions  anil  laws  of  his  house. 
He  giveth  not  to  man  an  account  of  his  doings. 


Prac  tical  Influence  of  Prelacy .  2'<3  o 

The  inefficacy  of  these  institutions  on  the  lives  of 
many,  and  the  piety  and  holiness  which  others  ex- 
hibit who  reject  them,  may  be  trials  of  our  humility 
and  submission;  tests,  whether  under  these  inauspi- 
cious appearances  we  may  not  arrogantly  exclaim, 
To  what  purpose  are  these  positive  ordinances? 
We  may  be  virtuous  and  pious  without  them.  Ah! 
let  not  the  humble  believer  be  seduced  by  this  spe- 
cious, but  arrogant  reasoning  from  the  ways  ofGod^s 
appointment.  It  was  this  proud  spirit  which  urged 
our  first  parents  to  violate  a  positive  institution  of 
the  Almighty ;  which  lost  them  paradise,  and  the 
fallen  angels  the  glory  of  their  frst  estate."* 

Thus,  Sir,  it  appears  to  me,  that  there  is  no  dif- 
ficulty in  answering  fairly  and  solidly,  the  objection 
which  you  make  to  Episcopacy,  when  carried  so 
far  as  to  unchurch  all  non-Episcopalians.  ,  If  we 
once  adopt  the  principle,  that  we  are  not  to  admit 
any  thing  into  our  religious  creed  which  bears  hard 
upon  others,  I  really  do  not  know  at  what  point  we 
are  to  stop.  I  fear  this  principle  will  put  all  reli- 
gions exactly  upon  a  par.  The  serious  and  inquisi- 
tive mind  will  never  be  satisfied  till  it  rests  upon 
what  it  deems  truth ;  and  when  once  it  is  settled 
upon  that  ground,  it  will  never  be  induced  to  relin- 
quish it  from  any  supposed  or  real  inconvenience 
that  may  result  from  it  to  others.  Were  the  con- 
trary to  be  admitted,  a  ministry  must  be  given  up  ; 

*  Apology,  page  248. 

Vol.IL  A  a 


266  Letter  XXI. 

for  the  consequence  offends  those  who  have  none. 
Nay,  Christianity  must  be  given  up  ;  for  it  offends 
Jews,  Turks,  Idolaters,  and  Infidels  of  every  kind . 

This,  Sir,  or  something  like  it,  would  be  the  an- 
swer to  your  imaginary  difficulty,  from  that  class 
of  Episcopalians  who  pronounce  the  Presbyterian 
ministry  absolutely  invalid.  The  other  class,  al- 
though they  place  Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of 
Apostolical  and  divine  right,  as  well  as  the  first ; 
yet,  not  thinking  that  it  necessarily  unchurches 
others,  are  not  at  all  concerned  with  your  objection. 
This  class  then  have  the  advantage  of  you  (if 
there  be  any  advantage  in  it) ;  for,  by  your  doctrine, 
a  ministry  is  made  essential  to  a  visible  church; 
and,  consequently,  you  unchurch  the  Quakers,  and 
some  other  mystical  professors  of  Christianity. 

But  one  more  point  now  remains  to  be  consi- 
dered: it  is  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession. 
It  is  very  evident  to  me,  that  although  you  admit 
the  doctrine  for  the  sake  of  argument,  yet  that  you 
do  not  believe  it.  If  so,  you  are  not  a  Presbyterian, 
for  the  Westminster  divines,  and  all  true  Presbyte- 
rians, maintain  that  doctrine  as  strenuously  as  Epis- 
copalians. Dr.  Mason  and  Mr.  M^Leod  assert  it 
most  pointedly.  I  think  then,  that  they  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  pleased  with  this,  and  several  other  parts 
of  your  book.  Were  I  a  Presbyterian,  I  should 
certainly  say,  ncn  tali  auxilio ;  for  in  my  humble 
opinion,  you  have  ruined  the  Presbyterian  cause. 
Were  it  not  too  late  m  the  discussion,  and  that  I 


Uninterrupted  Succession*  267 

am  heartily  tired  of  the  labour  I  have  sustained,  I 
Vj'ould  enter  into  a  very  minute  detail  of  particu- 
lars ;  but,  perhaps,  on  some  future  occasion,  I  may 
be  induced  to  do  it.  I  have  already  said  something 
upon  the  point  in  my  thirteenth  letter ;  but  Mr. 
How  has  said  a  great  deal  more  ;  and  whoever 
reads  his  masterly  performance  with  an  attentive 
and  impartial  mind,  will  be  satisfied  that  I  am  cor- 
rect in  my  assertion. 

■  The  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession  appears 
to  me  to  be  capable  of  strict  logical  proof.  In  rea- 
soning upon  any  point,  there  must  be  some  allowed 
principle  upon  which  the  reasoning  must  ultimately 
rest ;  for  we  cannot  go  on  adding  argument  to  ar- 
gument ad  infinitum.  The  principle  admitted  in  this 
case  is  this — No  man  has  a  right  to  act  as  an  offi- 
cer in  Christ's  kingdom  without  a  commission  from 
him.  The  greatest  enthusiast,  as  well  as  the  most 
sober  Christian,  admits  this  to  be  reasonable,  neces- 
sary, and  scriptural.  They  differ  only  as  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  commission  is  conveyed.  Let  us 
now  see  whether  we  cannot  rest  our  arguments 
in  proof  of  uninterrupted  succession  upon  this 
ground.  If  we  can,  the  point  must  necessarily  be 
considered  as  established. 

There  are  but  two  ways  pretended,  in  which  a 
commission  is  conveved  from  Christ  to  his  minis- 
ters. The  one  is  ordinary,  the  other  extraordinary. 
The  latter  we  have  nothing  to  do  with.  In  the  first 
way,  none  can  give  a  commission,  but  those  who 


268'  Letter  XXI. 

are  authorized  by  the  commission  they  themselves 
bear,   to  commission  others.     This  is  undeniable. 
But  the  question  is,  To  whom  was  this  power  of 
appointing  stewards  in  Christ's  household  given? 
It  must  have  been  given  either  to  the  people,  or  to 
ministers.     We  cannot  possibly  tell  by  our  own  rea- 
son, to  whom  Christ  gave  this  power  ,•    we  must, 
therefore,  have  recourse  to  Revelation.   Now,  there 
is  not  one  tittle  in  the  whole  book  of  God,  which 
intimates  that  this  power  was  given  to  the  people  : 
but,  on  the  contrary,  the  original  commission,  and 
every  transaction  relating  to  a  ministry,  prove  that 
none  but  ministers  of  some  sort  (it  matters  not  what, 
as  it  relates  to  the  present  argument)  have  a  right 
to  ordain.    They  then  who  are  ordained  by  laymen, 
cannot  possibly  derive  a  commission  in  this  way 
from  the  great  Head  of  the  church  ;  of  course,  or- 
dination by  ministers  must  be  the  only  scriptural 
mode.     The  New  Testament  shows  this  to  have 
been  the  case.     The  Apostles  were  authorized  by 
Christ  to  act  in  his  name  ;  and  he  promised  to  pre- 
serve in  his  church  to  the  end  of  time  the  authority 
which  his  commission  conveyed.     By  virtue  of  this 
commission,  the  Apostles  ordained  others,  as  St. 
Paul  did  Timothy  and   Titus ;  and  these   officers 
committed  the  same  commission  to  other  faithful 
men ;  and  thus  a  succession  began  by  Christ,  and 
continued  by  his  Apostles,  and  by  those  who  suc- 
ceeded to  the  authority  contained  in  the  original 
commission,  has  been  preserved,  under  the  spec3»\i 


Uninterrupted  Succession*  26$ 

providence  of  Christ,  who  has  bound  himself  to 
the  church,  that  a  succession  shall  be  preserved  to 
the  end  of  the  world. 

"  The  Christian  church"  (to  use  the  words  of 
Dr.  Chandler)  "  was  thus  originally  constituted  un- 
der officers  of  divine  appointment,  as  evidently  as 
the  Jewish  was  ;  and  Christians  in  the  times  of  the 
Aposdes,  had  no  more  right  to  set  up  an  authority 
different  from  theirs,  or  in  opposition  to  it,  than  the 
Israelites  had,  in  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  to  gainsay 
Moses  and  Aaron  in  these  very  popular  words: 
1  Ye  take  too  much  upon  you,  seeing  all  the  con- 
gregation are  holy,  every  one  of  them,  and  the 
Lord  is  among  them  ;  wherefore  then  lift  ye  up  your- 
selves above  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  V  Let 
it  now  be  observed,  that  what  were  the  rights  of 
Christians  in  the  Apostles'  days,  the  very  same, 
neither  more  nor  less,  are  the  rights  of  Christians 
at  this  day."*  Consequently,  as  the  power  of  or- 
daining was  not  lodged  in  the  body  diffusive,  but 
in  the  hands  of  particular  persons,  it  can  be  de- 
rived from  the  Apostles  in  no  other  way  than  by 
personal  communication,  or  succession,  in  a  line 
that  has  never  been  interrupted. 

If  then  all  authority  in  the  church  is  mediately 
derived  from  Christ,  as  all  Presbyterians  allow,  an 
uninterrupted   succession   is   an   inevitable   conse- 

•  Appeal  further  defended,  p.  81,  82,  83. 

Aa2 


270  Letter  XXI. 

quence,  and  is  capable  of  demonstration.  "  If  au- 
thority can  be  conveyed  from  Christ  mediately,  by 
a  succession  that  is  interrupted,  there  must  be 
somewhere  in  the  succession  a  person  who  can  give 
that  which  he  has  not.  If  the  authority  first  given 
to  Ay  is  to  pass  on  successively  to  B,  to  C\  to  Z), 
and  to  E ;  should  the  conveyance  stop,  or  be  inter- 
rupted ac  67,  so  that  it  passes  not  on  to  D;  in  that 
case  D  does  not  receive  it,  and,  therefore,  cannot 
convey  it  to  is,  unless  D  be  able  to  give  what  it  has 
not.  Supposing  the  authority,  when  it  comes  down 
to  67,  to  be  annihilated,  or  to  cease  ;  unless  it  be  re- 
newed, E  can  never  be  invested  with  it.  The  ques- 
tion then  is,  who  shall  renew  it  ?  Now,  all  authority* 
from  Christ  must  flow  from  Christ ;  if  it  begins, 
and  has  its  source  short  of  him,  it  is  not  his  au- 
thority. If  he  pleases  to  renew  it,  he  may  give  it 
immediately  to  is,  or  he  may  give  it  to  .D,  by  him 
to  be  communicated  to  E ;  and  in  either  way  E 
may  be  invested  with  Christ's  authority.  But  now 
let  us  suppose  that  any  number  of  men  upon 
earth,  or  that  all  the  Angels  in  heaven  should  at- 
tempt to  renew  the  authority  of  Christ,  once  inter- 
rupted and  lost ;  unless  a  stream  can  have  a  higher 
derivation  than  its  source ;  unless  these  men,  or 
these  Angels  can  give  what  they  have  not,  the  thing 
is  impossible.  They  may  give  what  they  have,  they 
may  give  their  own  authority;  but  Christ's  authority 
they  cannot  give,  unless  they  have  received  it.  And 


Un  i  n  terrupted  Succession,  271 

if  they  have  received  it,  it  is  not  they  that  renew 
the  authority,  but  Christ  himself."* 

Thus  then  it  appears  to  be  capable  of  demon- 
stration, that  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  minis- 
ters is  essential  to  the  Christian  church ;  and  that 
if  there  has  been  any  failure,  a  ministry  deriving 
its  authority  from  Christ,  has  also  failed.  But  this 
we  know  cannot  be  ;  for  Christ  has  promised  that 
it  should  not ;  and  what  he  has  promised,  he  is 
certainly  able  to  fulfil. 

And  as  the  order  of  the  clergy  is  a  positive  insti- 
tution by  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  so  the  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  the  ministry  must  of  necessity 
be  a  positive  institution  by  the  same  authority.  If 
then  Episcopacy  has  been  proved  to  be  a  divine 
institution,  it  as  necessarily  follows,  that  the  suc- 
cession of  Bishops  has  been  as  uninterrupted  as  the 
ministry.  For  if  to  the  order  of  Bishops  the  power 
of  ordaining  was  attached,  then  it  follows  that  the 
Episcopal  order  is  essential  to  the  perpetuity  of  the 
ministry.  Of  course  a  succession  of  such  ordainers 
is  essential.  Admit  then  that  Episcopacy  is  a  divine 
institution,  and  the  succession  is  a  matter  of  neces- 
sity, and  is  no  more  capable  of  failure  than  the  mi- 
nistry is.  Being  the  law  of  God's  house,  it  must 
answer  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  established.  It 
is'  no  solid  objection  to  say,  that  the  ministry  is  too 

*  Chandler's  Appeal  defended,  p.  60a  61, 


272  Letter  XXI. 

much  under  the  control  of  man  to  be  susceptible  of 
perpetuity,  and  uninterrupted  succession.  The  will 
of  man  is  as  much  under  the  control  of  the  Al- 
mighty as  the  winds  of  heaven,  or  the  ebbing  and 
flowing  of  the  tides.  Were  he  to  withdraw  his  in- 
fluence from  the  creation,  the  law  of  nature,  as  it  is 
called,  would  not  prevent,  for  a  moment,  universal 
confusion.  The  law  of  God,  whether  it  respects 
the  creation,  the  moral  system,  or  the  positive  in- 
stitutions of  the  church,  must  produce  its  effects ; 
and  although  deviations  may,  for  wise  reasons,  be 
permitted  in  the  natural  and  moral  world,  and  in 
the  church,  yet  the  general  effect  intended  to  be 
produced  by  the  original  constitutions,  will  infallibly 
take  place;  and  every  thing  upon  which  the  Crea- 
tor has  stamped  perpetuity,  will  no  doubt  continue 
till  his  purposes  shall  be  answered. 

Thus  I  think  it  appears,  both  from  reason  and 
scripture,  that  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  the 
ministry,  and  of  consequence  Episcopacy,  if  it  be 
a  divine  institution,  is  a  necessary  consequence  of 
the  original  establishment ;  and  that  there  is  no 
more  danger  of  its  failing,  than  there  is  of  the 
church  failing.  It  may  indeed  be  destroyed  in  par- 
ticular situations  ;  so  may  the  church  also ;  and  we 
know  that  in  fact  this  has  been  the  case ;  but  so 
long  as  the  sun  and  moon  endure,  so  long  will  the 
church  and  her  ministry  endure. 

It  is  an  objection  that  sometimes  meets  us,  that 


Uninterrupted  Succession.  27H 

an  uninterrupted  succession  cannot  be  proved  by 
written  records.  This  is  really  very  weak.  We 
do  not  want  records  to  prove  the  succession  of  the 
ministry.  Its  divine  institution,  and  the  promise 
to  be  with  it,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  is  a  better 
proof  of  succession  than  a  million  of  volumes 
would  be.  But  although  I  deem  this  a  sufficient 
answer  to  the  objection,  yet  I  will  meet  it  in  another 
way :  I  say  then,  that  we  have  records,  equal  to 
those  for  a  succession  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Bible.  Suppose,  Sir,  a  Deist  should  ask, — What 
proof  can  you  give  that  the  present  Greek  Testament 
is  a  faithful  copy  of  the  original  Gospels  and  Epis- 
ties  P  Would  you  not  tell  him  that  it  is  a  copy  of 
the  oldest  Greek  manuscripts  now  extant — that  it 
lias  been  compared  with  other  versions,  the  Latiny 
the  SyriaCy  the  Arabic,  the  Persic,  the  Ethiopia 
and  that5  for  this,  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
learned,  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  the 
only  evidence  we  can  have  ?  If  the  Deist  should 
proceed  in  his  inquiry,  and  ask  again, — How  do 
you  know  that  the  manuscripts,  from  which  the 
present  Greek  Testament  is  taken  are  genuine  tran- 
scripts of  more  ancient  manuscripts,  and  they  again 
of  still  more  ancient,  till  we  reach  the  originals  ? 
To  this  you  would  say,  we  have  the  testimony  of 
the  learned  in  every  age  up  to  the  Apostolic.  Add 
to  this,  that  we  find  our  present  Greek  Testament 
corresponding  with  innumerable  passages  in  the 
writers  of  every  age,  from  the  first  to  the  sixteenth 


274  Letter  XXI. 

century;  and  then  you  have  the  most  complete  evi- 
dence the  case  admits  of,  for  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  our  present  Greek  copy.  Just  the 
same  evidence  we  have  for  the  succession  of  the 
ministry  in  every  age.  The  testimony  of  a  crowd 
of  writers  in  every  period  of  the  church  declares  it 
to  be  so;  nay,  the  very  existence  of  the  church  proves 
it  to  be  so  ;  for  a  church  and  a  ministry  always  go 
together.  The  one  cannot  be  supported,  cannot  exist, 
without  the  other.  There  may  indeed  have  been 
false  pretenders  to  the  ministry  in  every  age,  as 
there  have  been  false  copies  of  the  sacred  writings  j 
but  both  were  rejected  by  the  church;  the  one  con- 
demned as  forged,  the  other  as  invalid. 

Notwithstanding  the  strong  and  invincible  argu- 
ments that  may  be  offered  in  support  of  the  doctrine 
of  uninterrupted  succession,  yet  you  inform  us-, 
that  several  writers  have  pronounced  "  the  claim  of 
succession  to  be  as  futile  as  it  is  unnecessary ;  as- 
sailing it  with  the  most  pointed  ridicule,  as  well  as 
with  formidable  arguments." 

That  several  Presbyterians,  Independents,  Soci- 
nians,  and  even  Episcopalians,  have  opposed  the 
claim  of  succession,  is  undoubtedly  as  true  as  that 
severalDeists  have  opposed  the  claim  of  Revelation; 
and  that  they  have  attempted  to  ridicule  what  they 
could  not  answer,  is  also  true.  But  I  am  very 
sorry,  Sir,  that  you  should  give  the  slightest  coun- 
tenance to  the  notion,  that  ridicule  is  a  proper  wea- 
pon on  a  serious  subject.    The  inquiry,  whether 


Un interrupted  Succession,  275 

the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  and  whether  the 
commission  which  Christ  gave  to  his  Apostles  has 
been  handed  down  by  vicarious  ordination  to  the 
present  time,  are  certainly  too  serious  to  be  ridi- 
culed. When,  therefore,  I  read  an  author  who 
uses  ridicule,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  he  has  no 
solid  arguments  to  offer;  that  the  truth  is  too 
powerful  for  him,  and  that,  therefore,  he  has  re- 
course to  distortion,  which  divests  truth  of  its  native 
beauty  and  simplicity,  and  gives  it  a  form  calcu- 
lated to  produce  laughter  mingled  with  contempt. 
Such  a  weapon  will  never  be  used  by  a  serious 
Christian  against  any  thing  that  is  not  in  itself  ri- 
diculous ;  and  surely  what  can  be  supported  by 
sound  reasoning,  and  by  the  word  of  God,  can 
never  be  deserving  of  that  character. 

You  conclude,  Sir,  as  you  began,  with  undesign- 
ingly  misrepresenting  some  of  the  writers  of  our 
church.  You  say,  Chillingworth,  Barrow,  and 
Hoadhj,  "  have  taken  the  negative  side"  of  this 
question.  If  you  had  given  a  reference  to  that 
part  of  Chillingworttfs  writings  which  contain 
what  you  ascribe  to  him,  I  should,  of  course,  con- 
sult the  place  ;  but  as  you  have  not,  I  shall  not  run 
over  his  works  in  quest  of  what  I  am  fully  satisfied 
can  never  be  found.  I  am  perfectly  weary  of  the 
trouble  you  have  given  me  in  this  respect ;  and  I 
am  sure  that  no  one  will  blame  me  for  declining  it 
on  this  occasion. — As  to  Barrozv,  I  have  shown,  in 
my  eleventh  letter,  by  several  quotations  from  him, 


276  Letter  XXI. 

that  he  maintains  the  doctrine  of  successioti,  as 
much  as  any  man  ;  and  also  that  Hoadly  maintains 
it  in  his  book  on  the  "  Reasonableness  of  Confor- 
mity ;"  admitting,  however,  in  a  case  of  necessity, 
a  departure  from  the  line  of  succession.  It  is  true, 
that  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  he  adopted  a  prin- 
ciple that  totally  annihilated  the  church  of  Christ. 
He  supposed  that  Christ  left  no  authority  whatever 
in  his  church  j  and,  consequently,  that  succession  is 
wholly  needless.  This  produced  the  famous  Ban- 
gorian  controversy ;  in  which  Hoadly  was  assailed 
by  the  ablest  writers  of  the  church,  and  particularly 
by  Mr.  Lazv,  who  gave  him  one  of  the  most  com- 
plete defeats  that  perhaps  any  man  ever  received. 
If  you  had  Koadly  in  view  when  he  thus  laid  the 
"  axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree,"  you  are  extremely 
welcome  to  him ;  but  if  you  had  reference  to  the 
book  I  have  mentioned,  you  are  greatly  mistaken, 
as  I  have  shown,  page  301. 

To  this  doctrine  of  unbroken  succession,  so  stre- 
nuously maintained  by  all  the  ancients,  and  by  the 
church  to  which  you  belong,  you  evidently  are  not 
well  affected.  However,  you  will  take  for  granted, 
u  that  it  is  the  only  channel  through  which  minis- 
ters of  the  present  day  can  have  the  Apostolic  com- 
mission transmitted  to  them.  Supposing  this  to  be 
the  case,  nothing  is  more  easy  than  to  show,  on 
Presbyterian  principles,  that  the  succession  in  our 
church  is  as  distinct,  regular,  and  unbroken,  as  that 
of  the  Episcopal  church." 


Uninterrupted  Succession.  Z7Y 

Were,  Sir,  this  to  be  admitted,  it  can  do  you  no 
good,  unless  you  can  prove  Presbytery  to  be  the 
original  constitution  of  the  church.  Then  the  same 
arguments  that  I  have  used  in  support  of  Episcopal 
succession,  would  apply  to  Presbyterian  ;  because, 
undoubtedly,  Christ  would  take  care  of  his  own 
institution.  But  even  in  this  case,  whatever  may 
be  said  of  your  church,  it  is  very  certain,  that 
several  sects  make  no  pretensions  to  succession, 
and,  therefore,  no  care  is  taken  to  preserve  it.  This 
is  the  case  with  the  Baptists,  Independents,  and 
others.  In  New-England^  there  have  been  nume- 
rous instances  of  lay  ordinations  ;  consequently,  all 
derived  from  that  source  have  no  pretensions  to 
succession.  In  France,  for  several  years,  lay  ordi- 
nation was  practised  and  defended  ;  but  at  lengdi 
it  was  given  up,  as  unscriptural  and  unwarrantable. 
The  ministry  of  the  Huguenots,  then,  cannot  flow 
in  an  unbroken  line.  Calvin  himself  was  not  or 
dained,  if  Beza,  his  friend  and  colleague,  knew 
any  thing  about  the  matter;  and  yet,  no  doubt,  he 
ordained  numbers.  Is  it  probable,  then,  that  the 
church  of  Geneva  has  a  succession  ?  With  respect 
to  the  church  of  Scotland,  I  do  not  know  that  lay 
ordination  was  ever  admitted  by  her  ;  but  it  is  very 
certain,  that  for  several  years  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  imposition  of  hands.  This,  I  think,  all 
sober  Christians  will  acknowledge  to  be  verv  un- 
scriptural, to  say  the  least.  The  English  Presbvte- 
rian  succession  is,  I  believe,  the  most  pure,  as  the 
Vol.  II.  B  b 


278  Letter  XXI. 

first  non-conformists  were  ordained  by  English  Bi- 
shops. 

But  admitting  that  Presbyterian  orders  are  every 
where  free  from  suspicion,  yet  there  is  one  obvious 
objection  to  them.  When  the  Reformation  began, 
all  the  churches  in  Europe  were  Episcopal,  and  all 
the  Presbyterians  then  existing,  had  been  ordained 
by  Bishops.  But  no  Bishop  ever  gave  a  Presbyter 
authority  to  ordain.  The  utmost  authority  given 
is,  to  preach  the  word,  and  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments. Whence  then  did  those  Presbyters  who 
first  ordained,  derive  that  power  ?  The  office  of  a 
Presbyter  is  a  gift  mediately  from  Christ.  But  a 
person  who  receives  a  gift,  receives  just  as  much 
as  the  gift  implies,  and  not  a  tittle  more.  But  the 
power  of  ordaining  was  not  a  part  of  the  gift  to  the 
Presbyters  at  the  Reformation.  How  then  could 
they  ordain  others  when  they  were  not  empowered 
so  to  do  ?  There  appears  to  be  a  difficulty  here : 
How*  is  it  to  be  removed  ? 

There  is  one  expression,  which,  before  I  close, 
it  may  be  proper  to  notice.  You  say,  at  the  bottom 
of  page  346,  that  imparity  is  a  Popish  doctrine. 
Pray,  Sir,  do  you  know  what  Popery  is?  I  am  per- 
fectly cool,  I  do  assure  you.  I  will  not  give  way  to 
any  indignant  expressions ;  but  I  do  insist  upon  it, 
that  you  are  totally  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Popery,  or  you  would  not  assert  that  imparity 
sprang  out  of  the  church  of  Rome ;  for  this  must 
be  your  meaning,  or  you  mean  nothing  to  the  pur- 


Cnirttcrrupied  Succession.  C27CJ 

ptose.  Besides,  this  assertion  is  inconsistent  with 
your  own  concession.  I  have  proved  that  the  Papal, 
supremacy  did  not  exist  till  the  seventh  century, 
and  you  allow  that  imparity  prevailed  centuries  be- 
fore that  period.  Gan  a  thing  spring  from  a  source 
that  did  not  exist  till  ages  after  ? 

Again:  How  happened  it,  Sir,  that  when  the 
assertion  under  consideration  dropped  from  your 
pen,  you  did  not  recollect  Jerome's  account  of 
the  church  of  Alexandria  ?  He  assures  us,  that 
imparity  existed  in  that  church  from  its-  foundation. 
Poor  Jerome !  How  you  do  treat  him!  When  he 
speaks  obscurely,  he  is  a  great  man — a  man  of  great 
learning  and  research  ;  but  when  he  speaks  plainly 
and  positively  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  then  he  is 
treated  with  as  little  respect  as  you  treat  the  office 
of  a  Bishop. 

Further  :  If  imparity  originated  in  the  church  of 
Rome,  there  must-  be  some  evidence  cf  it.  Now, 
Sir,. I  will  put  the  matter  to  a  fair  trial.  I  call  upon 
you  to  produce  the  evidence,  that  Episcopal  impa- 
rity began  in  the  church  of  Re  me.  You  have  com- 
mitted yourself,  Sir;  you  must,  therefore,  either 
prove,  or  renounce  your  assertion. 

Lastly.  Weigh  impartially  the  evidence  exhi- 
bited in  these  letters,  for  tht;  Apostolic  origin  of 
Episcopacy,  and  then  lav  your  hand  upon  your 
heart,  and  in  the  fear  of  God  say,  whether  you  do 
not  think  that  you  have  most  grossly  libelled  the 
whole  Episcopal  church  throughout  the  world,  iiv 


280  Letter  XXI. 

ascribing  Episcopacy  to  corruption,  and  to  a  love 
of  power  and  domination,  from  which  Papal  supre- 
macy originated.  Something  explicit  upon  this 
point  will  be  expected  from  you,  in  the  course  of 
the  controversy.  Silence  will  not  be  taken  as  an 
acknowledgment  of  error,  but  as  a  pertinacious  ad- 
herence to  it ;  and  we  shall  not  be  satisfied  unless 
you  either  say,  "  I  have  erred,"  or  maintain  your 
assertion  with  learning  and  argument. 

You  next  sum  up  all  that  you  have  said  in  favour 
of  parity,  and  against  Episcopacy,  in  the  following, 
triumphant  manner. 

"  You  have  seen,"  (addressing  your  Christian 
brethren)  "  that  the  scriptures  contain  but  one  com- 
mission for  the  gospel  ministry." — Yes,  Sir,  and  we 
have  seen  that  the  one  commission  was  conveyed 
in  all  its  plenitude  to  that  order  of  men,  who,  ac- 
cording to  scripture  and  antiquity,  took  the  place 
of  the  Apostles  ;  and  to  the  Presbyters,  but  a  part 
of  the  authority  implied  in  that  commission.  This 
was  proved  in  a  particular  manner  by  the  authority 
given  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  by  the  testimony 
of  antiquity. 

"  You  have  seen — that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are 
uniformly  used  in  the  New  Testament  as  converti- 
ble titles  for  the  same  office ;  that  the  same  character 
and  powers  are  also,  in  the  sacred  writings,  ascribed 
interchangeably  to  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  thus 
plainly  establishing  their  identity  of  order  as  well 
as  of  name? — We  have  seen  that  the  community 


Recapitulation*  281 

iji  names  is  a  gross  and  insufferable  fallacy — that  it 
does  not  follow,  because  the  second  order  had  a 
double  title,  that  there  were  none  who  presided 
over  them.  We  have  seen  that  the  Apostles  go- 
verned those  Presbyters  and  Bishops,  and  that  they 
devolved  their  supremacy  on  a  number  of  persons, 
to  whom  the  care  of  churches  was  committed;  and 
that  this  order  had  one  of  the  titles,  at  first  given 
to  Presbyters,  appropriated  to  them.  That  title  is 
Bishop,  according  to  all  the  Fathers,  who  are  posi- 
tive and  decisive  upon  this  point. 

"  You  have  seen — that  the  Christian  church  was 
organized  by  the  Apostles,  after  the  model  of  the 
Jewish  Synagogue,  which  was  undoubtedly  Pres- 
byterian in  its  form." — We  have  seen  that  the  Syiia- 
gogue  and  the  Church  are  essentially  different  in 
their  origin,  their  constitution,  and  their  ministry ; 
that  the  former  was  of  human  appointment,  that  the 
latter  is  of  divine ;  that  the  ministry  of  the  former 
possessed  no  character  of  sacredness,  no  commis- 
sion from  God,  but  from  the  people ;  that  there  was 
no  principle  of  unity  in  the  Synagogue,  no  sacra- 
ments, no  marks  of  a  Church;  in  short,  that  it  was 
no  Church  ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  Synagogue  was 
not  the  model  of  the  Christian  Church. 

"  You  have  seen  that  all  the  arguments  which  our 
Episcopal  brethren  profess  to  derive  from  scripture 
in  favour  of  their  system,  are  perfectly  nugatory, 
and  do  not  yield  it  the  least  solid  support."  We 
have  seen  that  the  Apostolic  commission  is  to  bo 
Bb2 


282  Letter  XXI. 

continued  in  the  church  to  the  end  of  the  world ; 
that  it  was  devolved  upon  Barnabas,  Epaphroditusy 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  Apocalyptic  Angels ;  and 
that  these  had  their  successors,  who  were  in  power 
and  rank  superior  to  the  Presbyters.  This,  we 
have  observed,  is  a  decisive  proof,  that  the  Apos- 
tolic pre-eminence  is  to  be  continued  in  the  church 
for  ever. 

"  You  have  seen  that  the  Fathers  of  the  first  two 
centuries  are  so  far  from  furnishing  a  single  passage 
which  gives  even  a  semblance  of  aid  to  the  Episco- 
pal cause,  that,  like  the  scriptures,  they  every  where 
speak  a  language  wholly  inconsistent  with  it,  and 
favourable  only  to  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  pa- 
rity."— We  have  seen  that  this  is  a  misrepresenta- 
tion gross  to  excess.'  We  have  seen  the  testimo- 
nies of  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  of  Tertitllian,  of 
Jreneus,  of  Dionysius,  of  Hegesippus,  and  of  Ig- 
natius, in  the  second  century  -T  and  we  have  seen 
that  the  evidence  is  so  clear  and  strong,  that  Blon- 
del,  Salmasius,  Chamier,  and  a  number  of  others, 
have  given  up  the  point  after  some  time  in  that 
century.  We  have  also  seen,  that  the  third  cen- 
tury affords  a  large  collection  of  testimonies  to 
Episcopal  government  as  existing  not  only  in  what 
age,  but  also  in  the  two  preceding  ages  ;  and  that 
the  fourth  century  bears  the  same  testimony.  And 
the  conclusion  from  all  this  is,  that  we  have  clear, 
decisive  evidence  for  the  Apostolic  institution  of 
Episcopacy. 


Recapitulation. 

"  You  have  seen  that  the  great  body  of  the  Re- 
formers and  other  witnesses  for  the  truth,  of  differ^ 
ent  ages  and  nations,  with  one  voice  maintained  the 
same  doctrine,  as  taught  in  scripture,  and  in  the 
primitive  church;  and  that  even  the  most  conspi- 
cuous English  Reformers,  while  they  assisted  in 
organizing  an  Episcopal  establishment  in  their  own 
country,  defended  it  on  the  ground  of  human  expe- 
diency^ and  the  will  of  the  magistrate,  rather  than 
that  of  divine  right.''1 — We  have  seen  that  all  this  is 
at  utter  variance  with  the  true  state  of  the  case ;  that 
all  the  Reformers  of  the  church  of  England  placed 
Episcopacy  on  the  ground,  not  of  human  expediency^ 
but  of  Apostolic  institution.  We  have  seen  this  to 
be  the  fact  from  the  most  authentic  documents} 
from  the  Questions  and  Ansviers,  from  the  preface 
to  the  Ordinal,  from  the  Ordination  offices,  from 
CratimeSs  catechism,  and  sermon  on  the  Keys,  and 
from  the  testimonies  of  Collier  and  Burnet.  We 
have  also  seen  that  those  distinguished  zvitnesses 
for  the  truth,  the  Waldenses,  and  the  Protestants  of 
Bohemiar  were  Episcopalians  upon  the  ground  of 
Apostolic  institution,  and  that  they  preserved  this 
primitive  government  under  all  their  sufferings, 
and  in  defiance  of  all  the  power  of  their  enemies. 
We  have  seen  all  this  proved  by  the  testimony  of 
historians  the  most  respectable,  and  the  most  wor- 
thy of  credit. 

u  You  have  seen  that  the  church  of  England,  and 
those  churches  which  have  immediately  descended 


284  Letter  XXL 

from  her,  stand  absolutely  alone,  in  the  zvhole  Pro- 
testant world,  in  representing  Bishops  as  an  order 
of  clergy  superior  to  Presbyters ;  all  other  Pro- 
testants, even  those  who  adopt  a  sort  of  prelacy, 
having  pronounced  it  to  be  a  mere  human  invention? 
•—We  have  seen  that  this  is  in  direct  opposition  to 
matter  of  fact.  We  have  seen  that  not  only  the 
churches  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  Scotland  and  in  this  country,  place 
Episcopacy  upon  the  ground  of  Apostolic  institu- 
tion, but  that  also  the  Moravian  church*  and  the 
churches  of  Sweden  and  Denmark  place  it  upon 
the  same  ground-  We  have  also  seen  that  nearly 
die  whole  world  is  Episcopal;  and  that  no  proof 
can  be  brought  that  there  ever  existed  a  single 
Presbyterian  church  from  the  Apostolic  age  to  the 
Reformation.  And  to  this  may  be  added,  the  late 
information  given  by  Dr.  Buchanan,  that  the  Syrian 
church  in  the  East-Indies  is  Episcopal,  and  has 
been  so  from  its  foundation. 

u  You  have  seen  some  of  the  most  learned  and 
pious  Bishops  and  other  divines  of  the  church  of 
England,  utterly  disclaiming  the  divine  right  of 
diocesan  Episcopacy  ;  and  declaring  that  they  con- 
sidered a  great  majority  of  the  clergy  of  that  church, 
in  later  as  well  as  earlier  times,  as  of  the  same  opi- 
nion with  themselves."-— We  have  seen  that  nearly 
all  the  divines  whom  you  quote,  as  conceding  that 
Episcopacy  is  a  human  institution,  do,  in  the  most 
express  manner,  maintain  that  it  is  an  Apostolic  in- 


Recapitulation.  285 

iuuuion  ;  and  that  this  is  the  opinion  of  the  great 
body  of  Episcopal  divines  is  beyond  all  doubt. 

"  Finally:  You  have  seen  that  the  gradual  intro- 
duction of  Prelacy,  within  the  first  four  centuries, 
was  not  only  practicable,  but  one  of  the  most  natural 
and  probable  of  all  events  ,  and  that  the  most  com- 
petent judges,  and  profound  inquirers  into  early 
history,  have  pronounced  that  it  actually  took  place." 
— .We  have  seen  that  there  was  no  change,  either 
gradual,  or  otherwise,  in  the  government  of  the 
church  y  that  not  a  single  writer  of  antiquity  gives 
any  hint  of  a  change ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they 
all  declare  Episcopacy  was  established  by  the  Apos- 
tles* We  have  also  seen,  that,  from  the  afflictecL 
state  of  the  church  during  the  first  three  centuries, 
from  the  nature  of  the  human  mind  which  cannot 
act  without  a  motive,  and  from  the  impossibility  of 
assigning  any  motive  for  an  attempt  to  alter  the  go- 
vernment of  the  church,  no  such  change  could  have 
taken  place.  We  have  further  seen,  that  if  men 
could  have  been  found  weak  and  wicked  enough  to 
make  the  attempt,  still  that  it  was  impracticable  to 
succeed  without  the  aid  of  the  civil  arm  y  and  that,. 
we  know,  for  three  centuries,  was  exerted,  not 
to  give  distinction  to  the  church  of  Christ,  but  to 
leave  not  a  trace  of  it  upon  the  face  of  the  earth. 
And,  lastly,  we  have  seen,  that  the  opponents  of 
Episcopacy,  confidendy  as  they  talk  about  a  change, 
cannot  so  much  as  mime  the  century  in  which  the 
change  took  place,  but  that  they  are  at  utter  variance 


286  tetter  XXI. 

upon  this  point  among  themselves.  From  all  these 
considerations  we  conclude,  that  no  change  took 
place ;  but  that  Episcopacy  is  an  Apostolic  and  divine 
institution. 

To  conclude :  We  have  seen  that  your  boolc, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  is  almost  one  con* 
tinued  chain  of  misstatements  of  facts,  misrepre- 
sentation of  authors — bold,  unfounded  assertions — 
false  reasoning — palpable  contradictions  of  your 
own  assertions,  of  the  principles  of  your  own  church, 
of  the  writers  of  your  own  denomination,  and  what 
is  worse  than  all,  of  the  holy  scriptures.  All  this* 
must  have  been  veiy  evident  to  every  attentive  and 
impartial  reader.  But  still  it  may  be  well  again  to 
bring  to  view  these  particulars,  that  every  one  who 
wishes  to  see  the  truth,  may  be  satisfied  that  I  am 
perfectly  correct  in  my  assertion.  The  references 
will  be  to  my  own  Letters,  in  which  the  proofs  of 
your  errors  are  exhibited. 

Misstatements  of  Facts. 

1.  You  say,  that  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, attended  the  council  of  Antioch,  in  the  year 
260.  Eusebius  says  that  he  was  not  there;  being 
detained  by  age  and  infirmities.     Letter  iv.  p.  81. 

2.  You  say,  that  Dalmatius,  who  assisted  at  the 
general  council  of  Ephesus,  in  the  fifth  century, 
told  the  Emperor,  that "  there  were  6000  Bishops  in 
the  council."   You  quote  no  ancient  author  for.  this* 


Misstatements  of  Facts.  287 

for  a  very  good  reaon — you  could  not.  Indeed,  it 
carries  absurdity  upon  the  face  of  it;  and  it  contra- 
diets  Du  Pin,  and  Cave,  who  say  that  about  200 
attended.     Letter  iv.  p.  84,  85,  86. 

3.  You  say,  that  St.  Patrick  planted  congrega- 
tional Episcopacy  in  Ireland.  This  is  absolutely 
incredible.  A  Bishop,  acting  under  the  Pope  of 
Rome,  planting  parity  in  the  churches  hefounded, 
is  too  ridiculous.  Mosheim  gives  such  an  account  ' 
of  the  matter  as  every  man  would  expect — Patrick 
planted  Episcopacy.  Dr.  Maurice  gives  the  same 
account.     Letter  iv.  p.  87,  88,  89,  90. 

4.  You  assert,  that  the  Bishop  lived  in  the.  same 
house  with  his  Presbyters.  This  also  is  too  ridicu- 
lous for  any  man  to  believe.  It  is  a  gross  misstate- 
ment, as  will  be  seen  Letter  iv.  p.  91,  92. 

5.  You  say,  that  ■"  Ireneus  was  Bishop  of  Lyons, 
when  he  was  sent  with  a  letter  from  that  church  to 
Eleutherus,  Bishop  of  Rome.''''  This  contradicts 
Eusebius,  who  says  that  Ireneus  was  but  a  Presby- 
ter at  that  time,  and  that  he  was  not  Bishop  of 
Lyons  till  after  his  return.     Letter  vii.  p.  169. 

6.  You  assert,  that  the  business  of  the  ^tiestions 
and  Ansxvers  occurred  in  the  year  1548  ;  whereas 
it  is  evident  from  Burnet,  that  it  took  place  in  the 
year  1540,  before  the  death  of  Henry  the  eighth, 
when  the  Reformation  had  made  but  little  progress. 
Letter  xii.  p.  11,  12. 

7.  You  inform  us,  "  that  several  foreign  divines 
who  had  only  Presbyterian  ordination,  were  allowed 


288  Letter  XXI. 

to  hold  benefices  in  England*''  Of  #vis  you  give  no 
proof;  nor  do  you  so  much  as  name  the  foreign  di- 
vines. I  have,  however,  supplied  the  omission. 
They  were  P.  Martyr,  M.  Bucer,  and  P.  Fagius. 
The  two  last  were  never  admitted  to  any  Ecclesias- 
tical benefice,  but  only  to  academical  preferments. 
The  first  held  a  benefice,  but  he  was  previously  or- 
dained by  a  Bishop.     Letter  xv.  p.  40. 

8.  You  assert,  that  "  Bancroft  was  the  first  man 
who  preached  up  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy." 
This  is  contrary  to  fact.  Cranmer  preached  it 
long  before  Bancroft.  So  did  the  other  Reformers, 
and  some  time  after  them,  Whitgift  preached  it. 
The  ordination  offices  also  maintain  that  doctrine. 
Letter  xv.  p.  57,  58,  59. 

9.  You  say,  that  the  constitution  of  the  church  of 
Scotland  was  founded  on  the  Presbyterian  plan.  On 
the  contrary,  I  have  proved  from  the  most  respecta- 
ble historians,  that  the  Reformers  Of  that  church 
adopted  the  Lutheran  plan  of  Superintendents ;  and 
tfiat  parity  of  ministers  was  not  admitted  till  twenty 
years  after  the  Reformation.     Letter  xv.  p.  60,  61. 

10.  You  maintain,  that  the  Swedish  Bishops  are 
no  more  than  Superintendents.  This  is  in  direct 
contradiction  to  Mosheim.     Letter  xvi.  p.  70. 

11.  You  adduce  the  Waldenses  as  witnesses  to 
ministerial  parity ;  and  assert  "  that  their  Ecclesias- 
tical organization  was  Presbyterian  in,  its  form." 
This  has  been  proved  to  be  a  gross  error.  The 
proofs  are  taken  from  Mosheim.  Allix,  Commenius, 


Misrepresentation  of  Authors.  289 

and  the  Bohemian  church,  in  its  preface  to  the  book 
called  Ratio  Disciplinable*  Letter  xvi.  p.  78,  79,80. 

12.  You  misstate  the  times  when  infant  commu- 
nion, the  power  of  Metropolitans,  and  the  Papacy 
took  their  rise.     Letter  xviii.  p.  136  to  150. 

13.  You  assert,  that  the  people  elected  their  Bi- 
shops in  the  first  three  centuries.  This  is  certainly 
contrary  to  fact,  during  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
that  period.  Letter  xviii.  p.  150,  151,  152.  These 
are  but  a  part  of  your  misstatements. 

Misrepresentation  of  Authors, 

1.  You  have  misrepresented  Jtrome.  Several 
pointed,  decisive  testimonies  have  been  adduced 
from  this  author.  When  he  is  not  obscure,  no  wri- 
ter of  antiquity  bears  stronger  testimony  to  the 
Apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacy.  Letter  i.  pas- 
sive. 

2.  Hilary  is  misrepresented.  He  says,  "  In  the 
absence  of  the  Bishop,  the  Presbyters  consigncmt  /' 
or,  more  probably,  consecrant — consecrate  the  Eu- 
charist. At  any  rate,  it  does  not  signify  ordain. 
Letter  ii.  p.  33,  34,  35,  36. 

3.  You  grossly  misrepresent  Chrysostom  and 
Theodoret.  They  most  pointedly  and  unequivo- 
cally assert  the  Apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacv. 
Letter  ii.  p.  38,  39,  40,  41. 

4.  You  give  an  unfair  view  of  the  testimonies  of 
Primasius  and  Sedulius.     They  do  no  more  than 

VoL.  II.  C  c 


290  Letter  XXL 

assert  the  community  of  names  ;  to  which  Episco- 
palians readily  subscribe.     Letter  ii.  p.  42. 

5.  Your  view  of  the  condemnation  of  A'erius,  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  accounts  of  Epiphanius 
and  St.  Augustine.     Letter  ii.  p.  42,  43,  44. 

6.  You  misrepresent  the  address  of  Cyprian's 
'9th  Epistle.  To  make  it  comport  with  your  order 
of  Ruling  Elders,  you  insert  the  word  Elders, 
which  is  not  in  the  address.     Letter  iii.  p.  67. 

7.  You  make  Numidicus  a  Ruling  Elder,  when 
Cyprian  says,  he  joined  him  with  his  Clergy,  that 
their  number  might  be  recruited  with  such  illustri- 
ous Priests — gloripsis  sacerdotibus.  Letter  iii.  p.  69. 

8.  You  have  vilified  the  Apostolic  Canons,  which 
Bishop  Beveridge  has  amply  proved  to  be  the  de- 
crees of  Synods  in  the  second  and  third  centuries, 
collected  at  different  times,  and  by  different  persons. 
Blondel  acknowledges  that  they  are  as  ancient  as  the 
third  century.     Letter  v.  p.  114,  115,  116,  117. 

9.  You  have  misrepresented  Dodxvell  in  what  he 
says  with  respect  to  Peter.     Letter  v.  p.  128,  129. 

10.  You  have  most  egregiously  misrepresented 
Cyprian  in  the  few  quotations  you  give  us  from  his 
writings,  and  particularly  when  you  say,  that  he 
calls  Presbyters  his  colleagues.  He  never  once 
calls  them  so.     Letter  v.  p.  135. 

11.  You  have  given  a  ridiculous  account  of  Tcr- 
ttdlian's  High  Priest,  who,  you  suppose,  "  might 
have  been  the  standing  Moderator  of  the  Presby- 
tery."   Letter  vi.  p.  142,  143. 


Misrepresentation  of  Authors.  291 

12.  You  misrepresent  Clemens  Alexandrians,  who 
distinctly  enumerates  the  orders  of  Bishop,  Presby- 
ter anil  Deacon  -T  and  asserts  that  there  are  precepts 
in  the  holy  scriptures  relating  to  each  of  them  ; 
consequently,  that  they  are  of  divine  institution. 
Letter  vi.  p.  155. 

13.  You  have  given  an  unfair  view  of  the  testi- 
monies of  Ireneus.  Nothing  can  be  more  explicit 
than  his  assertion,  that  Bishops  succeeded  to  the 
pre-eminence  of  the  Apostles.  Letter  vii.  p.  163, 
164,  165. 

14.  You  have,  even  to  a  degree  of  ridiculous- 
ness, misrepresented  Ignatius.  His  Epistles  are 
such  a  powerful  support  to  the  Episcopal  cause, 
that  the  most  learned  advocates  of  Presbytery  have 
never  attempted  to  bend  them  in  favour  of  their 
hypothesis.    Letter  vii.  p.  182,  183,  184r185. 

15.  You  have  entirely  perverted  the  meaning  of 
Origen  and  Hilary,  in  order  to  make  them  give  a 
favourable  look  towards  Ruling  Elders.  They  do 
not  give  that  order  the  slightest  support.  Letter 
viii.  p.  204,  207,  208. 

16.  You  have  given  an  explication  of  the  various 
texts  of  scripture  adduced  in  the  course  of  the  dis- 
cussion, which  is  at  utter  variance  with  the  explica- 
tion of  the  Fathers.  As  the  point  in  dispute  is  a 
matter  of  fact,  they  r^iist  be  infinitely  better  judges 
of  the  evidence  of  that  fact  than  any  moderns  can 
be.     Letters  ix.  x. 

17.  You  have  greatly  misrepresented  Barrow, 


292  ■    Letter  XXI. 

Dodwell,  and  Hoadly,  on  the  subject  of  uninter- 
rupted succession.  The  latter  is  misrepresented  on 
the  supposition  that  you  had  reference  to  his  Rea- 
sonableness of  Con  for  mitt).  Letter  xi.  p.  296,  297, 
300,  301,  302. 

18.  You  have  totally  misrepresented  the  nature 
of  the  Jewish  Synagogue ;  and,  in  consequence, 
have  erroneously  made  it  the  exemplar  of  the 
Christian  church.     Letter  xii. 

19.  You  have  given  an  erroneous  view  of  the 
Institution  cf  a  Christian  man.  It  maintains  a  pa- 
rity of  Bishops  in  opposition  to  Papal  supremacy ; 
but  not  a  parity  among  all  the  ministers  of  the 
Gospel.     Letter  xiv.  vol.  ii.  p.  3. 

20.  You  have  misrepresented  the  principle  upon 
which  Cranmer  took  out  a  new  commission  for  the 
exercise  of  his  office.  He  did  not  thereby  acknow- 
ledge any  spiritual  authority  in  the  King ;  as  is 
evident  from  Burnefs  history  of  the  Reformation. 
Letter  xiv.  p.  15, 16. 

21.  You  have  given  a  very  false  representation 
of  the  old  Ordinal.     Letter  xiv.  p.  19 — 27. 

22.  You  have  grossly  misrepresented  the  canons 
of  Elfric.  They  bear  a  direct  testimony  to  Epis- 
copal pre-eminence.     Letter  xvi.  p.  94,  95. 

23.  You  have  ascribed  to  Archbishop  Ansebne, 
a  work  which  Cave  says  is  spurious.  Your  quo- 
tation therefore  is  good  for  nothing.  Letter  xvi. 
p.  96. 

24.  You  have   given  a  very  improper  view  o4 


Unfounded  Assertions,  29*3 

IVhitgift,  Bilson,  J exv  el,  Stilling  fleet,  Burnet,  and 
several  other  writers.     Letter  xvii.  passim. 

2  J.  Your  view  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Epis  • 
copacy  is  nothing  but  misrepresentation  from  first 
to  last.  It  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  nature  of 
the  human  mind,  to  notorious  facts,  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  church,  and  to  the  testimony  of  all 
antiquity.     Letters  xviii.  xix.  passim. 

These,  Sir,  are  but  a  part  of  your  misrepresenta- 
tions.    They  are,  however,  enough  for  a  specimen; 

3.  Unfounded  Assertions, 

1.  All  your  misstatements  of  facts,  and  misrepre- 
sentation of  authors,  are  so  many  unfounded  asser- 
tions.    To  these  I  will  add  a  few  more. 

2.  You  assert  that  Jerome  informs  us,  that  the 
Presbyters  ordained  their  Bishop  at  Alexandria. 
This  is  without  foundation.  He  says  no  such  thing. 
Letter  i.  p.  19. 

3.  Your  caution  to  your  readers  to  beware  of  the 
writers  of  the  third  century,  cannot  be  justified  by 
facts.  None  of  your  observations  can  be  supported. 
Letter  ill.  p.  59,  60,  61,  62. 

4.  You  assert,  that  there  was  but  one  congrega- 
tion at  Carthage.  This  has  been  proved  to  be 
groundless.     Letter  iii.  p.  70,  71  •• 

5.  You  say,  "  That  the  church  of  which  a  Bi- 
shop had  the  care,  is  represented  in  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius,  as  coming  together  to  one  place."  This 
is  without  foundation.    Letter  vii.  p.  187. 

Cc-2 


■294,       .  Letter  XXL 

6.  You  say,  that  "  the  Fathers  are  not  unani- 
mous, but  contradict  one  another."  This  is  totally 
unfounded.  They  all  make  Episcopacy  an  Apos- 
tolical institution.     Letter  viii.  p.  220,  221. 

7.  You  assert,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  acted  as 
Evangelists  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  This  assertion 
is  unfounded.  It  has  been  shown  that  they  could 
not  possibly  have  acted  as  Evangelists,  if  we  re- 
gard the  etymology  of  the  word ;  for  the  Gospel 
had  been  preached  in  both  places  before  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  sent  to  preside  over  them.  Letter 
ix.   p.  255,  256. 

8.  You  assert,  that  the  Reformers  of  the  Church 
of  England  were  Presbyterians  in  principle.  This 
has  been  proved  by  abundant  evidence  to  have  no 
foundation.     Letter  xiv.  passim. 

9.  Your  assertion  that  ignorance  prevailed  in  the 
second  and  third  centuries,  is  groundless.  It  was 
very  far  from  being  the  case.  Letter  xviii.  p.  166, 
167,  168,  169. 

10.  I  have  noticed  in  this  letter  your  unfounded 
assertion,  that  imparity  is  a  Popish  doctrine,  p.  278. 

It.  The  summary  in  your  last  letter  of  the  evi- 
dence contained  in  your  book,  is  nothing  but  a  string 
of  unfounded  assertions.  Not  one  of  the  nine 
particulars  which  you  enumerate  has  been  proved, 
p.  280—285. 

This  I  believe  will  be  a  sufficient  sample  of  un- 
founded assertions. 


Contradictions  and  Omissions.  295 

Contradictions. 

1.  You  contradict  yourself.    Letter  xiii.  p.  381. 

2.  You  contradict  your  own  Confession  of  Faith. 
Ibid. 

3.  You  contradict  the  Westminster  Divines,  Dr. 
Mason,  and  Mr.  MLeod.    Ibid. 

4.  You  contradict  the  scriptures.    Ibid.  p.  379. 

Omissions. 

You  have  omitted  several  direct,  positive  testi- 
monies from  Jerome,  several  from  Hilary,  two 
from  Isidore,  two  from  Optatus,  one  from  Athana- 
sius,  one  from  Theodoret,  two  from  Epiphanius^ 
several  from  Chrusostom,  and  several  from  Ensebius; 
besides  the  testimonies  of  hundreds  of  Bishops 
met  in  General  and  Provincial  Councils  in  the 
fourth  century. 

2.  In  the  third  century  you  have  omitted  the  tes- 
timonies of  Alexander,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  of 
Cornelius,  and  the  Presbyters  of  the  church  of  Rome^ 
of  Origen,  and  a  volume  of  testimonies  from  Cyp- 
rian, and  the  Bishops  of  Africa;  besides  the  tes- 
timony given  to  Episcopacy  by  the  Apostolical 
canons. 

3.  In  the  second  century,  you  have  omitted  the 
testimony  of  DionyshiSj  of  PolycraUs^  and  of  He- 
gcsippus. 


296  Letter  XXI. 

4.  In  the  first  century  you  have  omitted  to  notice 
the  church  of  Jerusalem,  which,  from  the  scripture 
account,  and  the  testimonies  of  the  ancients,  affords 
Episcopacy  strong  support. 

I  have  now,  Sir,  said  all  that  I  think  necessary 
to  be  said  upon  the  question  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Christ's  church.  The  subject  will  admit 
of  a  much  ampler  discussion,  and  it  would  be  an 
easy  matter  to  fill  another  volume  with  testimonies, 
and  reasonings  upon  them ;  but  I  think  enough  has 
been  done  to  convince  those  who  will  weigh  with 
candour  and  impartiality  the  evidence  adduced,  that 
Episcopacy  is  an  Apostolic  and  divine  institution. 

Although  my  patience  has  been  severely  tried  by 
your  manner  of  quoting  authors,  by  several  pro- 
voking hints  and  expressions,  and  by  a  management 
strikingly  partial  and  unfair;  yet  I  hope  that  I  have 
not  been  hurried  into  any  transgression  of  decorum* 
I  certainly  wished,  while  I  spoke  plainly,  to  avoid 
every  thing  that  would  unnecessarily  hurt  your  feel- 
ings. When  error  is  exposed,  it  must  unavoidably 
have  an  unpleasant  effect  upon  the  mind  of  him 
who  has  fallen  into  it ;  but  if,  when  exposing  error, 
the  manner  of  doing.it  be  so  harsh  as  to  irritate  the 
feelings  of  art  opponent,  it  is  censurable.  That  I 
am  faulty  in  this  respect,  I  am  not  conscious  ;  but 
if  you,  Sir,  perceive  any  thing  of  the  kind,  point  it 
out,  and  it  shall  be  immediately  retracted.  Or  if 
I  have  done  you  injustice  in  any  respect  whatever, 
you  have  but  to  name  it,  and  if  it  be  really  in  jus- 


Conclusion.  297 

tice,  I  will  readily  acknowledge  it  to  be  so.  To  en- 
degrades  no  man ;  but  obstinately  to  persevere  in 
error,  is  really  disgraceful. 


The  series  of  Letters  which  I  have  now  addressed 
to  you,  can  certainly  have  no  claim  to  freedom  from 
defects.  The  circumstances  under  which  they  have 
been  written,  do  not,  I  believe,  often  attend  one 
who  gives  his  thoughts  to  the  public,  upon  such  a 
variety  of  points  as  have  occurred  in  this  discussion. 
By  far  the  greater  part  of  these  Letters  have  been 
written  in  the  midst  of  my  family,  without  having 
hud  recourse  in  a  single  instance,  to  solitary  re- 
tirement, and  but  one  of  the  whole  series  has  been 
transcribed.  My  collegiate  duties,  too,  have  caused 
daily  and  almost  hourly  interruptions.  A  candid 
mind  will  not,  therefore,  be  disposed  to  find  fault 
with  slight  inaccuracies ;  but  will  place  them  among 
those  things  quas  incur  ia  fudit. 

I  shall  now,  Sir,  take  my  leave  of  you,  at  least 
for  a  time.  Whether  I  shaH  ever  address  you  again, 
will  entirely  depend  upon  yourself.  Should  you  be 
disposed  for  any  further  discussion  of  the  subject, 
you  will  not  find  me  unwilling  to  meet  your  wishes. 
When  the  church  to  which  I  have  the  happiness  to 
belong  is  attacked,  irksome  as  writing  is  at  my 
time  of  life,  I  feel  no  backwardness  to  exert  the 
little  ability  I  possess,  in  her  defence ;    and  it  af- 


29$  Letter  XXI. 

fords  me  no  little  pleasure  to  think,  that  I  am  at 
the  same  time  defending  the  cause  of  almost  every 
Christian  church  upon  earth. 
I  am, 
Reverend  Sir, 

With  esteem  and  respect, 
Your  obedient  humble  servant, 
JOHN  BOWDEN. 
Columbia  College,  July  15,  1808> 


THE  END. 


BOOKS 

Printed  and  sold  by  T.  &J.  S  WORDS,  No.  160  Pear  I -street, 
Nexo-York. 

1.  Dissertations   on   the  Prophecies,  which   have 

remarkably  been  fulfilled,  and  at  this  Time  are  fulfilling  in  the  World.  By 
Thomas  Newton,  D.  D.  late  Lord  Bishop  ot"  Bristol. 

2.  A  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the 

Protest3nt  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  Principally 
selected  and  altered  from  Helsonh  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of 
the  Church  of  England.  Ev  John  Henry  Hobart,  A.  M.  an  Assistant  Minister 
of  Trinity  Church,  New-Yoi  k.  To  which  are  added,  Pastoral  Advice  to  Young 
Persons  before  and  after  Confirmation,  by  a  Minister  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; and  an  Exhoitation  to  Family  Prayer,  by  Bishop  Gibson;  with  Forms 
of  Dcvoron. 

3.  A  Guide  to  the  Church,  in  several  Discourses : 

To  which  are  added,  two  Postscripts;  the  first  to  those  Members  of  the 
Church  who  occasionally  frequent  other  Places  of  Public  Worship ;  the  se- 
cond to  the  Clergy.  Addressed  to  William  Wilberforce,  Esq.  M.  P.  By  the 
Rev.  Charles  T)aubeny\  LL.  B.  3  Prtsbvtev  of  the  Church  of  England. 

4.  The    Catechism   of    the   Protestant   Episcopal 

Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  To  which  is  annexed,  a  Catechism, 
designed  as  an  Explanation  and  Et.Iargi.ment  of  the  Church  Catechism:  Re- 
commended by  the  Bishop  and  Clergy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  Sra^e  of  New-Yoik.     The  third  Edition. 

5.  An  Exposition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 

and  Administration  of  the  Sacramet  tr,  and  othei  Rues  and  Ceremonies  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  By  the 
Rev.  Andrew  Foioter,  A.  M.  Rector  or  St.  Bartholomew's  Parish,  South-Caro- 
lina.    T*'e  record  Edition,  with  Additions  and  Improvements. 

6._  A  Collection  of  the  Essays  on  the  Subject  of 

Episcopacy,  which  originally  appeared  in  the  Albanv  Centinel,  ano  v. h.ch  are 
ascribed  principally  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  linn,  the  Rev.  Mr.  BeasLy,  and  Thomas 
V.  Hrru;  Esq.     With  additioual  Notes  and  Remarks 

7.  An  Apology  for  Apostolic  Order  and  its  Advo- 
cates, occasioned  by  the  Strictures  and  Denunciations  cf  the  Christian's  Maga- 
zine. It,  a  Series  ot  Letters,  addressed  to  the  Rev.  John  M.  Mason,  D.  D. 
the  Editor  of  that  Work.  By  the  Rev.  John  Henry  Htbart,  an  Assistant  Minis- 
ter of  Trinity  Church.     Judge  rtgfffntis  jmigment.     Jchri  vii.  24. 

8.  Two  Letters  to  the  Editor  of  the  Christian's 

Magazine.  By  a  Churchman.  Becalm  in  arguing,  for  JSerceuesi  mai  error 
a  faulty  and  truth  discourttsy.  Herbert. — Refeliert  nut  fertrnacia,  it  refelii 
sine  iraawdia,  pari.'i  sumtts    Cicero. 

9.  An  Abridgement  of  Scripture  History;  con- 
sisting of  Lessons  selected  from  tie  Old  Testament.  For  the  Use  of  Schools 
and  Fatnil.es.     By  Mrs.  Trimmer 

10.  An  Attempt  to  familiarize  the  Church  Cate- 
chism. For  the  Use  of  Schco'.s  si,t  Families.  By  Mrs.  Trimmer.  First  Amtri- 
can,  fronj  the  third  London  Edition. 

11.  The  Christian  Institutes;  or,  the  Sincere  Word 

of  God.  Eeing  a  plain  and  impartial  Account  of  the  \vh,>le  Faith  and  Duty  of 
a  Christian.  Collected  out  of  the  Writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament: 
digested  ur.oer  proper  Heads,  and  delivered  in  the  Words  of  Scripture.  By 
the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God  Francis,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Chester.  The 
first  American,  irom  the  twelfth  Loudon  Edition. 

12.  Discourses  on  several  important  Subjects.     By 

the  late  Right  Rev.  Samuel  Sealury,  D.  D  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  States  cf  Connecticut  and  Rhode-Island.  Published  from 
Manuscripts  prepared  by  the  Author  for  the  Ptess. 


Books  printed  and  sold  by  ST.  C**  y.  Sivords. 

13.  An  Apology  for  the  Bible,  in  a  Series  of  Let; 

ters,  addressed  to  Thomas  Paiiie,  Author  of  a  Rook  entitled,  The  Age  of  Rea- 
son, Part  the  Second,  being  an  Investigation  of  True  and  of  Fabulous  Theo- 
logy. By  R.  Watson,  D.  D.  F.  R.  S.  Lord  Bishop  of  Landaff,  and  Regius 
Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Cambridge. 

14.  Primitive  Truth  and  Order  vindicated  from 

modern  Misrepresentation:  with  a  Defence  of  Episcopacy,  particularly  that  of 
Scotland,  against  an  Attack  made  on  it  by  the  late  Dr.  Campbell,  of  Aberdeen, 
in  his  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History.  By  the  Right  Rev.  John  Skinner,  in 
Aberdeen,  senior  Bishop  of  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church.  The  first  American 
Edition.     To  which  is  annexed,  a  Review  or  Dr.  Ihnveis'  Church  History. 

15.  A  brief  Retrospect  of  the  Eighteenth  Century. 

Part  first;  in  two  Volumes:  containing  a  Sketch  of  the  Revolutions  and  Im- 
provements in  Science,  Arts,  and  Literature,  during  that  period.  By  Samuel 
Miller,  A.  M.  one  of  the  Ministers  of  the  United  Presbyteiian  Churches  in 
the  City  of  New-York,  Member  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  and 
corresponding  Member  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Massachusetts. 

16.  A  Sermon,  delivered  before  the  General  Con- 
vention of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Ameika, 
in    St.  Michael's   Church,  Trenton,    New-Jersey,  on    Friday,  September  11, 

1801,  on  the  Occasion  of  the  Meeting  of  the  said  Convention,  and  of  the 
Consecration  of  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Moore,  of  New-Yoik.  By  the  Right 
Rev.  William  White,  D  D.  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania. 

17.  The  Charge  of  the  Right  Rev.  Benjamin  Moore, 

D.  D.  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  *tare  of  New-York  : 
delivered  to  the  Convention  of  said  Church,  on  the  5th  Day  of  October,  in 
the  Yen  of  our  Lord  1802. 

1 8.  A  Sermon,  preached  before  the  General  Con- 
vention of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  thr  United  States  of  America, 
in  the  Citv  of  New-York,  on  Wednesday,  September  12.  1804.  By  the  Right 
Rev.  Benjamin  Moore,  D.  D.  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal   Church  in 

the  State  of  New-York.     Published  at  the  Request  of  the  Convention. 

19.  The  Duty  of  fulfilling  all  Righteousness  ex- 
plained and  enforced,  in  a  Sermon,  by  the  Right  Rev.  Benjamin  Moore,  D.  D. 
Published  for  the  Use  of  the  Members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 

the  State  of  New-York. 

20.  The  Life  and  Posthumous  Writings  of  Wil- 
liam Cowper,  E'u,.  with  an  Introductory  Letter  to  the  Right  Honourable 
F.ai  I  Cowper.     By  William  Hayley,  Esq. 

21.  Observations  upon  certain  Passages  in  Mr.  Jef- 

fet son's  Notes  on  Virginia,  which  appear  to  have  a  Tendency  to  subvert  Re- 
ligion, and  establish  a  False  Philosophy. 

22.  The  Life  of  Samuel  Johnson,  D.  D.  the  first 

President  of  King's  College,  in  New-York.  Containing  many  interesting 
Anecdotes;  a  general  View  of  the  State  of  Religion  snd  Learning  in  Connec- 
ticut during  the  former  Part  of  the  last  Century ;  and  an  Account  of  the  In- 
stitution and  Rise  of  Yale  College,  Connecticut  /and  of  King's  (now  Columbia) 
College,  New-York.  By  Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler,  D.D.  formerly  Riaor 
©f  St.  John's  Church,  Elizabeth-Town,  New-Jersey.  To  which  is  added,  an 
Appendix,  containing  many  original  Letters,  never  before  published,  from  Bishop 
Berkeley,  Archbishop  Seeker,  Bishop  Lowth,  and  others,  ro  Dr.  Johnson. 

23.  An  Antidote  to  the  Miseries  of  Human  Life, 

in  the  History  of  the  Wkiow  Placid  and  her  Daughter  Rachael. 

~f£j-  Common  Prayer  and  Psalm  Eooks,  of  various  sizes,  and 
in  elegant  and  plain  bindings,  may  be  had  as  above ;  also 
Bibles,  Testaments,  Spelling  Books,  Primers,  &c.  &c.  8cc, 


.-..■ 


: 


■;    i 


, 


^ 


•  W-c 


